Court: Allahabad High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Bhanwar Singh
State Of U.P. Vs. Sushil Kumar Jain & Ors. On 23 May 2002
Law Point:
Not Dowry but Suspected Bad Character of Wife was Main Cause of Strained Relationship Between Two and such Strained Relationship Turned into Bitterness, Eventually Leading to their Divorce. Trial Court Rightly Recorded Finding of Accused being not Guilty. Acquittal of Accused Justified.
JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 18, 1991, passed by the then II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. By virtue of the said verdict, the respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A, 147, 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. A brief narration of the facts leading to this appeal may be noted as follows :
Sri Anand Prakash Jain, a resident of Sardhana, District Meerut lodged a First Information Report with the police of Khatauli Police Station, District Muzaffarnagar with the allegations that his daughter Mamta Jain was got married with Sri Sushil Kumar Jain on May 7, 1986 and he incurred sizable expenditures in solemnizing that marriage in accordance with his financial capability. However, the accused and his family members started demanding dowry barely eight days after the marriage and amongst other demands, scooter, colour T.V. and V.C.R. figured most. Mamta Jain was subjected to harassment by all the accused respondents and the informant came to learn about mal-treatment with which she was meted out on receipt of her letters. When Mamta came back to Sardhana, then also she disclosed about her being treated with cruelty. The informant’s efforts to appease the accused persons failed. Mamta kept on going to her husband’s house but every time she had to face the embarrassing situation of dowry demand. In the year 1987, Mamta delivered a child in Meerut Hospital but none of the accused persons came to see her. During her stay, with her husband at Delhi where he was in service, she was beaten by him. She then went to her in-laws’ house at Khatauli but there also she was subjected to mal-treatment and assaulted. On 9.6.1988 at 5 p.m. she was again subjected to physical cruelty and even an attempt to set her ablaze was made. Being horrified with the situation, Mamta managed her escape from the clutches of the accused respondents. Sri Surendra Kumar, who is the brother-in-law of the informant, took the girl to the hospital for treatment and medical examination. The informant lodged the report on 10.6.1988.
3. All the accused, namely, Sushil Kumar Jain, Km. Neetu, Km. Sangeeta, Smt. Kanti, Devendra and Vishwambhar Sahai pleaded not guilty and denied all the incriminating allegations levelled against them.
4. It is relevant to note that Sri Vishwambhar Sahai and Smt. Kanti are the parents of Sushil Kumar Jain, the husband of the victim of dowry demand; Devendra Kumar is the real brother of Sushil Kumar Jain and Km. Neetu and Km. Sangeeta both are daughters of Devendra Kumar.
5. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of the charges levelled against the accused. P.W. 1 Anand Prakash Jain, as stated above, is the father of the girl. P.W. 2 Mamta Jain is the victim of dowry demand, mal-treatment, cruelty and physical assault. P.W. 3 Rakesh Kumar Jain is an eye-witness of the occurrence, which is said to have taken place at 5 p.m. on 9.6.1988. P.W. 4 Surendra Kumar Jain is the maternal-uncle of Mamta Jain. He intervened when the accused assaulted her on 9.6.1988 and attempted to set her on fire by dousing her with kerosene oil. He carried her to the hospital for treatment and medical examination. P.W. 5 Dr. S.C. Jain examined Mamta Jain on 9.6.1988 and prepared the injury report, which was marked Ext. Ka 6 in the Trial Court. P.W. 6 Kamlesh Kumar was the Investigating Officer of this case. He examined, during the course of investigation, all the witnesses including Mamta Jain and prepared site-plan Ext. Ka 8. He was transferred from the police station before he could have completed the investigation. P.W. 7 H.C. Radhey Shyam proved the F.I.R. Ext. Ka 8 and its G.D. report Ext. Ka 9. The investigation was completed by Sri R.P. Sharma, who submitted charge-sheet against the accused but he had not been examined before the Trial Court.
6. In defence, the accused persons examined Finger Print and Hand Writing Expert Sri Vijendra Pal Singh as D.W. 1. According to his opinion, letters Exts. Ka 4 and 5 were not written by Mamta Jain. He proved his report Ext. Kha 43.
7. On a close scrutiny and analysis of the prosecution evidence the Trial Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge of dowry demand against the accused. It also arrived at a finding that the charges of physical assault and attempt to set Mamta Jain on blaze were not free from doubt and, therefore, the accused deserved their acquittal. On the basis of its findings, the Trial Court recorded a judgment of acquittal on all the counts. Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment, the State has filed this appeal against the five respondents. Leave to appeal was granted on 21.7.1992. The application moved on behalf of the State to implead Km. Sangeeta in the array of respondents during the pendency of appeal was rejected by this Court vide its order of August 23, 1996.
8. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Trial Court committed an error by disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, P.W. 3 Rakesh Kumar, who was an independent witness.
9. With this background, this Court has now to scrutinize as to whether the verdict of acquittal is sustainable or not.
10. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has drawn the Court’s attention towards the depositions of Mamta Jain, who was the victim of dowry demand and physical cruelty, and contended that she was the most reliable witness and as such there was no justification for the Trial Court to have disbelieved her, particularly when her testimony was supported by independent witnesses. With reference to this contention of the learned Counsel, the evidence of Mamta Jain (P.W. 1) has to be examined. It is noteworthy that she was married to Sushil Kumar in the year 1986 and with ups and downs in their marital life, the two got separated on 9.6.1988 with an unsavoury incident of a cane blow and an attempt to set her ablaze. On the said date, she came to her husband’s parental house at Khatauli at about 5 p.m. Whereas Sushil Kumar accompanied her, all other accused, namely, Kanti Devi, Vishwambhar Sahai, Devendra, Neetu and Sangeeta were present in the house. Her mother-in-law Kanti Devi asked her whether she had brought along with her the dowry items which were demanded in past. Sushil Kumar replied on her behalf in negative. Her mother-in-law inflicted a cane blow on her fore-head. The other accused persons including her husband started beating her with kicks and fits. In the meantime, Sangeeta doused her with kerosene oil. However, before she could be lit with fire, she ran for her life and raising hue and cry for help managed her exit from the house and came on the street where several witnesses including Rakesh and Suresh had gathered and a little while after, her maternal uncle Surendra Kumar Jain also came there. He took her to his house and then to a doctor. In this context, it would be relevant to look at the plaint of her suit, which she had filed in the Court of the District Judge seeking a decree for reimbursement of an amount of Rs. 99,000/- along with interest as the value of the items gifted by her father at the time of marriage. From a bare perusal of this plaint, it appears that this incident of June, 1988 had taken place at Delhi and not at Khatauli. In para 8, she asserted that she was brought to Delhi in March, 1988 and she stayed there with her husband. In the succeeding para, it was asserted that on June 9, 1988 Sangeeta had given a severe beating to her and also tried to kill the applicant by burning her with kerosene oil. Apart this major inconsistency regarding the place of occurrence, other details are also at variance. As recited further, she narrated in para 9 of her plaint that when she was being beaten and an attempt made to put her ablaze, one person knocked at the door and this disturbed the respondents, namely, Kanti Devi, Vishwambhar Sahai and Sushil Kumar Jain, as a result of which they could not succeed in their mala fide and unlawful endeavour. Her maternal uncle Surendra Kumar Jain came to know about this incident and he immediately rushed to Delhi and he was stunned to note that in the morning such a bizarre and unfortunate incident had taken place. Looking to the mental and physical torture to which Mamta Jain was subjected, Surendra Kumar immediately took her to the hospital and got her medically examined. The next day i.e. on 10.6.1988 she demanded her Stridhan but the respondents refused to oblige her. Her maternal uncle then brought her to Khatauli and lodged the F.I.R. of this case. This major inconsistency clearly shows that the theory of the informant’s daughter being subjected to mental or physical cruelty was a concocted story full of disturbing features about the manner in which the occurrence had allegedly taken place. It is significant to mention that this petition was filed by Mamta Jain on September 22, 1989 i.e. long after the occurrence but still recitals of the place of occurrence of Marpit at Delhi clearly blasts the prosecution case of her being subjected to physical cruelty on her refusal to oblige her in-laws with dowry items at Khatauli.
11. Mamta Jain also initiated proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The application under the aforesaid provision of law was submitted on October 12, 1987. A perusal of the said application would reveal that the applicant was asked to bring only money as dowry. In other words, there was no demand of any dowry item, like colour T.V., scooter or V.C.R. It is recited in the First Information Report Ext. Ka 8 that barely eight days after Mamta’s marriage, her in-laws started demanding scooter, colour T.V. and V.C.R. Mamta also disclosed in her evidence that such demands were made in the year 1986 itself. Question arises as to why these facts were not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the application moved under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on October 12, 1987. No plausible explanation for this omission has come forward and, therefore, a reasonable inference can well be drawn that since there was no demand of dowry items, like colour T.V. etc., it was not so recited in the application for maintenance allowance. In the letter Ext. Ka 3 dated 4.9.1986, which was addressed by Mamta to her father, a scooter was said to have been asked for. However, in the letter Ext. Ka 4, which was despatched in the year 1988, hardly anything about the dowry items was mentioned and similarly in yet another letter Ext. Ka 5, no complaint about dowry demand was made by her. These two letters very importantly refer to other bickerings going on between the husband and the wife and from the recitals thereof it appears that there were some other issues which were the bone of contention between Mamta Jain on one side and her husband and the latter’s family members on the other. The Trial Court seems to have rightly recorded a finding that there were other grounds of strained relationship between Mamta Jain and her husband Sushil and certainly the issue pertaining to dowry did not play any role. There are some other letters on record which were proved to have been written by Mamta jain and in those letters Exts. Kha 22 and Kha 24 she revealed that no dowry items had been demanded and her mother-in-law treated her with affection. Thus it is fully established from these letters that dowry was a manufactured subject developed by Mamta Jain and her father as also her maternal uncle, because they wanted to teach a lesson to Sushil Kumar and his family members after the bitterness developed between the two sides. The incident of Marpit and attempt made by Sushil Kumar and his family members to put Mamta Jain on blaze on 9.6.1988 is also a cock and bull story, as held above, in view of the serious inconsistencies about the place of occurrence.
12. The medical report also was not free from doubt. If kerosene oil was poured on Mamta’s garments, particularly Sari, she should have taken it to the doctor and the doctor, who examined her injuries, must have recorded this fact in the injury report. Dr. S.C. Jain, who entered in the witness-box before the Trial Court, proved the injury report but did not mention anything about the smell of kerosene oil either from the garments or from the person of Mamta Jain. He had conducted the medical examination without any instructions from the police. Also he had not before him the copy of the F.I.R. In his evidence, he stated with specificity that the fact of kerosene oil being thrown on her was not disclosed to him at the relevant time of Mamta being medically examined. It was an interesting coincidence that the doctor was related to one Ishwar, who lived in the ground floor of the same house in which Mamta’s maternal uncle Surendra Kumar was residing. In this way, the doctor’s evidence coupled with the inconsistency which crept in the evidence of Mamta Jain about her being beaten for the reason of dowry at Delhi, as recited in her petition under Order 33, C.P.C. is not worth credible.
13. P.W. 1 Anand Prakash, the father of Mamta Jain, P.W. 4 Surendra Kumar Jain and P.W. 2 Mamta Jain, all admitted that Panchayats were held in between the community members of the two families to resolve the dispute and a list of the dowry items, which were given at the time of the marriage, was also prepared in one of the meetings of Panchayat. What is relevant to mention is that if the dowry demand was the issue between the two, what was the necessity for preparing a list of such items which were allegedly gifted on the occasion of marriage. Secondly, if there was some resolution passed in one of the meetings of the Panchayat, it could have been reduced to writing and duly signed by the Panches and even if for the arguments sake it is assumed that the minutes of meeting were not recorded in writing, the informant could have examined any Panch so as to prove that the accused were dowry-crazy persons and in spite of so many gifts given to them at the time of marriage, they persisted either for money or other items, like scooter and T.V. etc. As admitted by Mamta Jain, Rajesh Kumar and Sripal were amongst several Panches of Jain community, but none of them was examined. The evidence of such Panches would have been very crucial to establish the charge of dowry demand, but such cogent piece of evidence appears to have been purposely withheld by the prosecution.
14. The evidence of P.W. 3 Rakesh Kumar Jain is not believable as it is not in conformity with the testimony of Mamta Jain. He deposed that on 9.6.1988 he was attracted by the hue and cry raised by Mamta Jain and when he went in front of her house, he saw that all the accused were assaulting her with Lathi and Dandas. As is evident, he saw this occurrence taking place on the street in front of the accused’s house. Contrary to this, Mamta Jain testified that she was beaten by her in-laws inside the house and when Sangeeta sprinkled kerosene oil on her, she ran to protect her life outside the house and soon after her exist, her in-laws closed the door and bolted it from inside. She remained there in front of the house for some time and left the place with her maternal uncle Surendra Kumar. It is thus obvious that according to the statement of Mamta Jain, no occurrence had taken place on the street in front of her husband’s house. This positive averment of Mamta Jain rules out the possibility of Rakesh Kumar Jain’s evidence to be worthy of credit. Moreover, Rakesh Kumar Jain was unable to disclose as to who were the persons, who had gathered at the site of occurrence. He also did not know Sangeeta or Neetu. Therefore, his statement about Sangeeta having doused Mamta with kerosene oil is also nothing but a tissue of lies.
15. P.W. 4 Surendra Kumar Jain’s evidence suffers from serious bias and prejudices. He appears to have no regard for truth. Quite contrary to the admissions of Mamta, he disclosed that she had never gone to Delhi to live with her husband Sushil. Further, he was in know of the fact that Mamta Jain was doused with kerosene oil but in spite of this, he did not consider it proper to preserve Mamta’s garments to be examined by the doctor and the Investigating Officer. Also he allowed Mamta Jain to abandon her blood-stained blouse and Sari instead of getting them produced before the Investigating Officer. Although he disclosed that only a month after Vishwambhar Sahai demanded more dowry but he could not remember the exact date, time or occasion of such demand. As regards the occurrence of June 9, 1988, he disclosed before the Trial Court that when he arrived at the site of the incident, he saw Kanti Devi with a cane in her hand and the two girls of the house, namely, Sangeeta and Neetu were assaulting Mamta. Giving further the descriptive version of the occurrence, he stated that Devendra Kumar and Sushil Kumar, standing in front of their house, were instigating the two girls to give a sour taste to Mamta and at that time the latter was smelling of kerosene oil. The cane of kerosene oil was also lying nearby. This description of the incident is in utter conflict with the evidence of Mamta Jain, who testified that whatever was the occurrence, it had occurred inside the house and when she ran out of the house for saving her life, the main door of the house was bolted from inside. Thus the evidence of Surendra Kumar Jain being incoherent with that of Mamta Jain is not worthy of any credence.
16. From the above discussion, it is established that the prosecution had manufactured the theory of dowry demand and beating of Mamta Jain for the reason of dowry. As a matter of fact, as also recited earlier, the in-laws of Mamta Jain including her husband had suspicion upon her chaste character and this feeling of infidelity is proved from the evidence, particularly the letter Ext. Ka 3 in which it is clearly mentioned that her mother-in-law and her husband both had accused her of being a bad character and they had even gone to the extent of saying that the child in her womb was not that of her husband. It was on account of this allegation that she was even threatened of being divorced. Even in her evidence, Mamta Jain had admitted that her husband had indicated her of unchaste character and he had also asked her to go away from his life. It is thus evident that not dowry but the suspected bad character of Mamta Jain was the main cause of strained relationship between the two and such strained relationship turned into bitterness, eventually leading to their divorce.
17. Keeping in view all what has been discussed above, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly recorded a finding of the accused being not guilty. As a consequence, the verdict of their acquittal is justified and the same is, therefore, sustained.
18. In the result, this appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.
Appeal dismissed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment