Inconsistent and contradictory proof - Accused entitled to discharge - Shiv NArayan Dhingra

            

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on 12.02.2007

Date of Decision: March 07, 2007

Crl.Appeal No.161 of 1999

07.03.2007

Surender Kumar and Another ..... Appellants

Through:Mr. J.B.Dhanda with Mr. Vineet Dhanda Advocates

versus

The State(NCT of Delhi) ..... Respondent

Through:Ms. Richa Kapoor with Ms. Sukriti Bhardwaj,

Advocates

CORAM:

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

Excerpts :

".................... 10. The real cause of dispute between husband and wife was something else. If her husband had been demanding more dowry, he would have readily agreed to send her back to her parents house and told her that she would not come back till she brings dowry. But her statement is that her husband was resisting her going to her parents house. Her father does not say a word as to what transpired between him and her husband from 8 am till 12.30 pm when both talked. He remained in the house of appellants from 8 am to 12.30 pm. He had come there with his wife or son and kept on discussing something in the presence of her daughter. What was the topic of discussion is not disclosed to the Court. It is not his case that during these four hours any demand of dowry was made or he was counseling to her daughter to adjust or to her in laws not to be greedy or he had made any proposal. It is admitted by prosecutrix that during this period her husband has been talking nicely as if he was having lovely relations with her. His statement that his daughter was beaten earlier also due to dowry demand and despite that he did not make any complaint to any one and allowed his daughter to go to her matrimonial home does not inspire confidence being contradictory to his statement to police. The statement of prosecutrix that she was beaten after every 2/3 days black and blue to the extent that she got injuries on her body and to the extent that she became unconscious or accused persons got tired of beating her is unbelievable in view of the fact that she used to go to learn typing and shorthand everyday and used to go for purchasing vegetables and milk in the morning and had an opportunity to go to her parents house at any time or to the police station at any time. Her this statement is also contradictory to her earlier version. It is apparent that something else was going on between the couple which culminated into some altercation on the night of 8th and 9th March,1992 with the result that she called her parents either to settle it down or to take her back. Since truth is not disclosed to the Court, something is amiss and Court cannot imagine what was the real cause but certainly dowry was not the cause. Neither the testimony of prosecutrix about beatings is trustworthy.

more at 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-JZGIVy-RW5ME5GaFFJRFV3eWs/edit?usp=sharing