Smt. Ram Pati vs State & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4065 Del

$-16
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                DECIDED ON : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2013

+                                    CRL.A. 26/2013

       SMT. RAM PATI                                         ..... Appellant

                            Through :     Mr.I.J.S.Gulati, Advocate.


                            versus

       STATE & ORS.                                          ..... Respondents

                            Through :     Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. Smt. Ram Pati (the appellant) challenges a judgment dated

20.07.2012 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate by which the respondent

Nos. 2 to 8 were acquitted of the charges under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.

I have heard the appellant's counsel and have examined the Trial Court

record. Learned counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the

evidence of PW-1 (Usha Rani) in true perspective. After recording her

examination-in-chief partly on 03.07.2002 she expired on 24.06.2011 and

it remained incomplete for various reasons. The Trial Court fell in grave

error in not considering her deposition in the judicial proceedings prior to

her death.

2. Usha Rani was married to respondent No.2 (Ranvir Singh) on

27.04.1994. On 31.10.1998, she lodged complaint against respondents

No.2 to 8 leading to registration of FIR under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.

On 03.07.2002, Usha Rani was examined as PW-1. On 24.06.2011, she

expired. Apparently, examination-in-chief of the complainant - Usha Rani

remained incomplete. She was summoned time and again on subsequent

hearing to depose but she did not appear. On 24.01.2004, she left without

Court's premises without examination. PW- Smt. Ram Pati (the present

appellant) declined to give her statement that date. Last and final

opportunity was granted to the prosecution. Finally, on 20.03.2004, the

evidence of the prosecution was closed. On an application moved under

Section 311 Cr.P.C., one last and final opportunity was granted with the

condition that it would be subject to the availability of the witnesses and

no exemption would be granted for examination of witnesses vide order

dated 19.11.2004. Again, prosecution evidence was closed on 07.02.2005

and the case was adjourned for final arguments after recording 313

statements. Another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved

which was dismissed by a detailed order dated 03.05.2006. In revision

vide order dated 07.08.2006, one last and final opportunity was given to

the complainant for her examination on 04.12.2006. The examination

never happened and application was moved to summon the record given

to the police in FIR No. 439/1997 under Section 406/498A IPC PS

Najafgarh. Attempts were made to summon the said record and ultimately,

it transpired that the said record had already been destroyed and the FIR

has been quashed by this Court. When the case was adjourned for

recording statement of the prosecution witnesses, it was reported that the

complainant had expired on 24.06.2011. The Trial Court, by the impugned

judgment, acquitted the respondents in the absence of any evidence.

3. Since, the testimony of complainant - Usha Rani remained

incomplete and the respondents did not get an opportunity to cross-

examine her, her statement recorded partly could not have been taken for

consideration to base conviction. The prosecution was given ample

opportunities to examine her but she failed to appear without cogent

reasons. Beside this, even the inconclusive statement of the complainant

does not implicate the respondents for committing offence under Section

498A/406 IPC. The prosecution also did not examine the other relevant

witnesses to prove the complainant's allegations. There was no

worthwhile evidence on record to establish the guilt of the respondents. I

find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. It is relevant to

note that the State did not challenge the acquittal order. The present

appeal has been filed by Smt. Ram Pati, complainant's mother, who was

one of the witnesses but never examined herself during trial.

4. The appeal is unmerited and is dismissed in limini. Trial

Court record be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 tr