Author Archives: vinayak

About vinayak

Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist

How a wife takes money from her husband’s bank account, and files 498A case when questioned !!

How a wife takes money from her husband’s bank account, and files 498A case when questioned !! Think twice if someone told you that Indians are all dowry seekers and India is a land of rapists !!!

Wife and her father claim to be British nationals. The husband is the Indian National and gets married to this woman, most probably through an arranged marriage, as per the wishes of the wife’s father. There are claims and counterclaims between the couple but the prosecution seems to have filed a charge-sheet on one fact, that the wife took money from the husband’s bank account and transferred it to her own account !! This whole operation has happened using a computer (online banking) which was located at Calcutta… ( The bank account was in the United Kingdom, but the computer was at Calcutta when the transaction was made ) So a criminal case has been filed by the husband against the wife, at Calcutta.

It seems that In retaliation the wife and company file 498a & cocktail on husband and his family trying to force the husband to give up his claim… Parallels They even approach the Calcutta High Court trying to quash the husband’s case ( the original one about swindling money ) … The high court sees through the wife’s drama and clearly dismisses her quash petition !!!

***************

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Malay Marut Banerjee

C.R.R. 1504 of 2010

Wasir Ahmed & Anr.
Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta Mr. Debabrata Ray Mr. Debashis Sinha Ms. Sharmistha Dhar

For the O.P. No 2 : Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh Mr. Satadru Lahiri

For the State : Mr. Manjit Singh, P.P.
Mr. Anand Keshari

Heard on : 06.04.2016 and 07.04.2016

Judgement Date : 22.04.2016

M.M. Banerjee, J.:

1. The revisionist/petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 748 of 2010 arising out of Park Street Police Station Case No. 50 of 2010. Before going into the contention raised in the revisional application within the legal scheme it would not be altogether out of place to refer to the factual matrix of the case as made out in the revisional application in a nutshell.

2. It is stated that petitioner no.2 Sofia Ahmed is the daughter of petitioner no.1 Wasir Ahmed. Both are British citizens. Petitioner no.1 is the Chairman of A1-Hamd Great Hall W.S.A. School at 18A, Dr. Sudhir Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 023 and has his business at Birmingham (U.K.). The petitioner no.2 studied law from the Inns Court School of Law, London and both at present reside at 22/1, Dent Mission Road, P.S. Ekbalpore, Kolkata – 700 023. The petitioner no.1 arranged marriage of petitioner no.2 with one Dr. Tarifur Rahaman, the opposite party/complainant. It is stated that the petitioner no.1 at the time of marriage of his daughter gifted diamond and gold jewellery valued at Rs.12 lakhs and also cash of Rs.2 lakhs. Such jewellery given by the petitioner no.1 was taken by her mother-in-law under instruction of the complainant. The petitioner no.1 arranged for the complainant to settle in England for study and work and has spent more than £30,000 British Pounds for accommodation and other expenses of his son-in-law, the complainant of the case and he also arranged for a Halifax Gold Card for his expenses and the complainant used the said card for all his expenses and the petitioner no.1 had to bear all such expenses. Since the complainant/opposite party no.2 was unable to open a separate bank account, the petitioner no.2 opened a joint account with him i.e., her husband and thereafter the complainant opened his separate bank account. It is alleged that £4700 British Pounds was transferred from the joint account to the new single account of the complainant and the single new account was used by both the husband and the wife and the complainant also got British citizenship by being married to a British citizen. The petitioner no.2 transferred some of her money from her husband’s account to her own account to pay for bills which were accumulating in England and also for her own personal expenses she had incurred while living in India since January, 2010. It is alleged that after coming to India in or about January, 2010 the complainant started physical and mental torture upon his wife, the petitioner no.2 whereupon she lodged a complaint with prayer for police investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Such prayer was allowed and Ekbalpur Police Case no.39 of 2010 was started and the complainant/opposite party no.2 was arrested and was in police custody for six days and the petitioner no.2 also filed a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband. It is contended that to create pressure upon the revisionist/petitioners the opposite party no.2/complainant lodged a complaint under Section 379/406/120B I.P.C. read with Section 66 of Information Technology Act on 03.03.2010 alleging that the petitioner no.1 in collusion with his daughter have illegally siphoned off £10,390 British Pounds from the complainant’s account with H.S.B.C. (United Kingdom) to the account of the petitioner no.2 at Natwest Bank (United Kingdom). It is contended that both the parties are British citizens and the money-in-question was transferred from a bank in U.K. to another bank in U.K. outside India and none of the parties resides within the jurisdiction of Park Street Police Station and no offence can be said to have been committed within the jurisdiction of Park Street Police Station. Further contention is that without the previous sanction of the Central Government in accordance with Section 188 Cr.P.C. the proceedings is not at all maintainable and is liable to be quashed.

3. Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist/petitioners argued that the sheer weakness of the complainant’s case is manifest from the allegation levelled by him against the revisionist petitioners because it is beyond anybody’s comprehension how allegation of theft could be made against a person alleging commission of criminal breach of trust against the same person arising out of the same and identical transaction. It was argued that once the opposite party/complainant got his footing on the soil of a foreign country at the benevolence of the revisionist/petitioners he took no time to misappropriate the gold and diamond jewellery of his wife and started perpetrating all sorts of torture upon the revisionist petitioner no.2 with a view to making her life a hell so that she parts way with him. It was contended that the torture accelerated to such an extent that the revisionist petitioner no.2 although belonging to the elite class of society was constrained to initiate proceedings under Section 498A/406/307/325/120B I.P.C. against the opposite party no.2/complainant and members of his family. It was argued that in his bid to get rid of that criminal prosecution and to create pressure upon the revisionist/petitioners the opposite party no.2/complainant lodged the instant case i.e., Park Street Police Station Case no.50 dated 04.03.2010. It was argued that it is not the complainant’s case that he had ever entrusted any property with either of the revisionist/petitioners and so the question of criminal misappropriation cannot and does not arise at all. It was further argued that even if it is taken for granted for the sake of argument that some amount was transferred from the single account of the complainant to the account of the revisionist petitioner no.2 that took place in the United Kingdom and so the alleged theft cannot be tried into by Court in India far to speak of any sort of investigation pertaining thereto by Indian Police.

4. With regard to the allegation made under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act the Ld. Advocate argued that Section 78 of the Statute creates bar of investigation into offences under the said Act by a Police Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and in the instant case a sub-Inspector of Police carried out the investigation.

5. It was argued that by the Ld. Advocate that since the aim of the opposite party no.2/complainant in launching the present case is to put the revisionist/petitioners to harassment and as a coercive measure and having particular regard to the factual backdrop of the case the Court should come to the findings that the present proceedings of the criminal case will be an abuse of the process of the Court and should be quashed.

6. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.2/ complainant argued that in terms of Section 2 and 3 of the I.P.C. the Indian Courts have jurisdiction to try the offences complained of. It was further argued that the merits or demerits of the case under Section 498A etc. pending against the complainant cannot be looked into at this stage. It was also argued that since charge-sheet has already been submitted in the instant case the revisional application has become infractuous.

7. The Ld. Public Prosecutor inviting the court’s attention to a copy of the report which is in the case diary, submitted before the 9th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by sub- Inspector Saikat Neogi on 23.02.2012 submitted that there should not be any confusion whether charge-sheet was submitted under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act or not. He emphatically submitted that charge-sheet was submitted excluding Section 66 of Information Technology Act and that the prosecution will never make out its case under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The Ld. Public Prosecutor submitted that such submission made by him may well be recorded by this Court to remove any confusion in future. Such unambiguous and clear submission made by the Ld. Public Prosecutor has been taken note of and it is to be seen whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings, investigation whereof has already ended in submission of charge-sheet, can be said to be an abuse of process of the Court.

8. The Ld. Public Prosecutor argued that whether charge under Section 379 or under Section 406 I.P.C. could be established and proved against the revisionist/petitioners will depend on the nature of the evidence that the prosecution will adduce during trial but the amount of money that was transferred from the account of the complainant/opposite party no.1 to the account of the revisionist petitioner no.2 was done by way of operation of computer at a place within the jurisdiction of Park Street Police Station, Calcutta and the offences must be said to have been committed within India and are well triable by Indian Courts.

9. The details of argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the revisionist/petitioners relating to the factual backdrop of the case i.e., the relationship of husband and wife between the complainant and the revisionist petitioner no.2, the help, assistance and benevolence rendered by the revisionist/petitioners to the opposite party no.2/complainant, sufferings of the revisionist petitioner no.2 at the hands of the complainant and members of his family giving rise to a criminal case against them, inter alia, under Section 498A/406 I.P.C. are all matters to be examined by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence that may be led by the parties. The most and only important question to be answered in this case is whether the offences complained of can be said to have been committed in India. On careful consideration of the provision contained in Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. I find that the said section applies first, when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India whether on the high seas or elsewhere. Indisputably the parties concerned in this case are British citizens. Secondly, if an offence is committed outside India by a person not being such citizen on any ship or aircraft registered in India. In other words, clause (b) applies to offence committed by foreigners on Indian ships or aircraft. So when an offence falls either within clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 188 Cr.P.Code, such offences cannot be enquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of Central Government. As already analysed, the case at hand does not come under Section 188 of Cr.P.Code. The question is where the offence has been committed. After going through the materials on record and bearing in mind the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsels appearing for the respective parties as also the argument made by the Ld. Public Prosecutor I find that the allegation is that certain amount of money was transferred from the complainant’s account to the account of the revisionist petitioner no.2 through the internet payment on 12th February, 2010 and 13th February, 2010 and such transaction through internet was carried out from Kolkata. In view of the above I find no hesitation to hold that the offences complained of have been committed within Indian Territory and having regard to the provisions contained in Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code the revisionist/petitioner may well be tried in India.

10. As already indicated hereinabove the prosecution will not bank upon its case in-so-far as it relates to commission of offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act but in-so-far as it relates to the offences complained of under Section 379/406/120B I.P.C., it is made clear that any observation made herein is not with regard to the merits of the case which will solely depend on the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution and the defence. So the quashing of the proceedings as sought for at the very inception at the pre-trial stage will not be proper. At this stage it cannot be held that the proceedings of the case if allowed to be continued will be an abuse of process of the Court. In the result, this Court does not think it proper to quash the proceedings of G.R. Case no. 748 of 2010 arising out of Park Street Police Station Case No. 50 of 2010. The revisional application fails and is accordingly dismissed.

11. A copy of this order be immediately sent to the Ld. Court below for proceeding with the case in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

(Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)

Marriage, 2 kids , love outside marriage and rape !! How India became a country of rapists !!

How a married woman, mother of two found a lover ( outside marriage ), filed a rape case on the lover / acquaintance and later conveniently claimed that there was no rape !!!

Court cases speak to us… Many of them tell bizarre tales of deceit of cheating and violence ….

Some like this case, tell us how a woman, motorway from my husband, found a second guy, and officially married him and also filed a fake rape case on him…

In addition to filing this week case she goes on to waste the time of all investigating agencies, and also the time of the court

Finally, for reasons best known to her, ( or probably after forcing the so-called rapist into her second husband ) she turns turtle at the courtroom says that they did not rape !!!

There are thousands of cases like this, where the so-called victim, or the prosecutrix, finally says there is no rape !! After having conveniently married the so-called rapist or after having conveniently taken some other form of satisfaction

Still in India is considered a country of rapists !!

****** case from Indian kanoon website ****

IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

 Sessions Case Number : 52/2014
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0100992014. State versus
Ashok Kumar Son of Sh. Harlal Singh Resident of L2 Block, Shop No. 64-A, 40 foota road, M/Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Permanent address: Village Dhaka ki Dhani, Post Bhoj Nagar, Distt. Jhujhnu Rajasthan. First Information Report Number : 240/13
Police Station: Uttam Nagar
Under sections: 376/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 26.02.2014 the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal : 25.04.2014
Arguments concluded on : 22.04.2016.
Date of judgment : 22.04.2016. Appearances: Ms. Madhu Arora, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 
Accused on bail. 
Ms. Nupur Sachdeva, Ld. Counsel for the accused. *********************************************************************** JUDGMENT 

1. Accused Ashok Kumar has been charge sheeted by the Police Station Uttam Nagar , Delhi for the offence under sections 376/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that accused grew closeness with her taking benefit of the fact that she was having differences with her husband and was living separately from him. She has levelled specific allegations of rape of one date after intoxicating her when she went to his shop for taking medicines. There are allegations of marriage under pressure and blackmailing as well.

2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against accused was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.02.2014 and after its committal, the case was assigned to this Court on 25.04.2014.

3. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 17.10.2014, charge for offences under section 376/328/506/363/366/496/120-B of the IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1 and her mother as PW2.

5. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in criminal matters, as approved by the "Committee to monitor proper implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual offences and child witnesses" have been followed.

6 The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she was married with one Pankaj Vaid and out of wedlock, two children were born. After some time, her husband started beating her after taking liquor and abused her. She filed a complaint under domestic violence against her husband and also for maintenance. She deposed that she has been residing at her matrimonial house with her children till date. She further deposed that accused was having the chemist shop in the same locality from where she used to take medicine of her kids. She says that while the divorce case with her husband was still pending, she married the accused on 12.11.2013. There were quarrels between them on small issues due to temperamental differences. She deposed that the complaint filed by her was typed by a typist of which the contents were not read over to her. She identified her signatures in the complaint. She denied that she was taken for medical examination. She admitted her photographs with the accused and stated categorically that she did not want to say anything against the accused.

7. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her.

8. In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for State, she has denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-1/A her typed complaint had been read over to her before being filed. She denied that on 02.07.2014, the accused had administered some intoxicating substance to her with intent to commit rape and had raped her thereafter. She denied that after the commission of rape, the accused had shown her an obscene video of her prepared by him and had threatened to kill her and her children, if she disclosed the incident to anyone. She denied that after 02.07.14, the accused raped her several times after threatening her that he would upload her video on the Internet. She denied that on 15.11.12, the accused threatened to kidnap her children and to show the video to his family members, if she did not agree to marry her. She denied that she was forced to marry the accused or that her signatures were obtained forcibly or that she was taken to Sikar, Rajasthan. She denied that on 17.11.12, her children were kidnapped by accused or that she was forced to marry the accused on 18.11.12 and to sign the affidavit dated 20.11.2012. She denied that on 11.05.13, she had called her parents and had asked them to follow the directions of accused, they followed the directions as her children were with the accused who had promised to return them afterwards. She denied that accused had given the photographs of her marriage with him to her first husband and was blackmailing her. She admitted that a petition had been filed by the accused for declaration of her marriage with accused as null and void.

9. The mother of the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 who stated that the marriage of her daughter with her first husband was not going well. She deposed that her daughter had married the accused out of free will in her presence and presence of her husband at Sikar, Rajasthan. After marriage, the prosecutrix and accused had resided at Uttam Nagar. She deposed that she did not want to depose anything against the accused. She was cross- examined by ld. Add. Prosecutor. In her cross examination, she stated that her statement was not recorded by the police as told by her. She stated that she did not tell the police that her daughter had married the accused in Arya Samaj Mandir on 18.11.12. She deposed that she did not say to the police that she had told the accused that her daughter could not marry him as she had not obtained divorce from her earlier husband. She denied having asked her daughter about her children at the time of solemnization of marriage and accused having told her not to worry about her children. She denied that children of her daughter were kidnapped by the accused or the accused had married her after kidnapping her children on 17.11.2012. She denied giving the statement in the court after being won over by the accused.

10. The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being raped by the accused. She has deposed that accused has not committed any offence against her and nor deposed anything incriminating against the accused. She has deposed that she had married with the accused out of her free consent. Her mother also did not speak anything against the accused. In fact, the mother stated that marriage between the prosecutrix and accused was voluntary and was attended by her and her husband.

11. In these circumstances, as both prosecution witnesses the prosecutrix and her mother, who are the main witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case and more importantly have not assigned any criminal role to the accused not deposing anything incriminating against the accused, the precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself, the most material witness, as well as the complainant has not supported the prosecution case and is hostile.

12. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C of the accused is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.

13. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix, PW1 & PW-2 her mother, who happen to be the material witnesses, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:

"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."

14. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.

15. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilt of an accused, particularly in cases where the prosecutrix has herself claimed that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence.

16. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused is guilty of the charged offences. There is no material on record to show that pros- ecutrix had gone to the shop of the accused on 02.07.12 as she had high fever or that the accused had asked her to stay there and had given her some medicines. There is no evidence to suggest that the accused had stopped her under pretext that she may fall down on way. There is nothing in the evidence to show that prosecutrix had fallen unconscious and on regaining consciousness had found the accused committed rape upon her. There is nothing to suggest that at that time, the accused had told her to marry her and to keep her children and to threaten her that in case she made a complaint to the police, he would highlight her video which he had made in the phone. There is nothing in the evidence to show that she was living away from her husband and that accused threatened her that he would tell everything to her husband. The prosecutrix has not uttered that the accused had threatened her that his brother in law was head constable in Delhi Police and that he would manage everything and make her life hell. The prosecutrix has not deposed that accused called her several times thereafter and made physical relations with her after threatening her that he would put her video on the Internet. She has not deposed that being a helpless woman, she for the sake of honour and safety of her minor children agreed to the demands of the accused. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that on 15.01.12, the accused went to the house of prosecutrix and told her that he wanted to marry her and that if she didn’t agree, he would get her children kidnapped. She has also not deposed that accused threatened that he will upload her video because of which she would commit suicide or that he asked her to prepare her parents for the marriage without telling them anything. She has not stated that the accused had kidnapped her son on 17.11.12 and had taken her to the temple where he married her against her will on 18.11.12 or that later, he got prepared an affidavit from the court on 20.11.12 and obtained her forcible signature. She has denied having been taken to Sikar for marriage and her parents being called there. She has not deposed that the accused gave the documents to her husband or that her husband and accused were in conspiracy with each other and had talked with each other.

17. From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offence of rape, kidnapping, intoxication, threatening, forcible obtaining of signatures. There is no evidence of conspiracy between Pankaj and the accused absolutely. The evidence of the prosecutrix makes it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place. She has categorically deposed that she had married the accused out of her free will in presence of her parents.

18. Consequently, accused is hereby acquitted of all the charges framed against him

19. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.

20. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.

21. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.

22. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.

Announced in the open Court on this 22nd day of April, 2016.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ)

Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)­01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

Marriage, 2 kids , love outside marriage and rape !! How India became a country of rapists !!

How a married woman, mother of two found a lover ( outside marriage ), filed a rape case on the lover / acquaintance and later conveniently claimed that there was no rape !!!

Court cases speak to us… Many of them tell bizarre tales of deceit of cheating and violence ….

Some like this case, tell us how a woman, motorway from my husband, found a second guy, and officially married him and also filed a fake rape case on him…

In addition to filing this week case she goes on to waste the time of all investigating agencies, and also the time of the court

Finally, for reasons best known to her, ( or probably after forcing the so-called rapist into her second husband ) she turns turtle at the courtroom says that they did not rape !!!

There are thousands of cases like this, where the so-called victim, or the prosecutrix, finally says there is no rape !! After having conveniently married the so-called rapist or after having conveniently taken some other form of satisfaction

Still in India is considered a country of rapists !!

****** case from Indian kanoon website ****

IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

 Sessions Case Number : 52/2014
 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0100992014. State versus
 Ashok Kumar Son of Sh. Harlal Singh Resident of L2 Block, Shop No. 64-A, 40 foota road, M/Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Permanent address: Village Dhaka ki Dhani, Post Bhoj Nagar, Distt. Jhujhnu Rajasthan. First Information Report Number : 240/13
 Police Station: Uttam Nagar
 Under sections: 376/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 26.02.2014 the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal : 25.04.2014
Arguments concluded on : 22.04.2016.
Date of judgment : 22.04.2016. Appearances: Ms. Madhu Arora, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 
Accused on bail. 
Ms. Nupur Sachdeva, Ld. Counsel for the accused. *********************************************************************** JUDGMENT 

1. Accused Ashok Kumar has been charge sheeted by the Police Station Uttam Nagar , Delhi for the offence under sections 376/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that accused grew closeness with her taking benefit of the fact that she was having differences with her husband and was living separately from him. She has levelled specific allegations of rape of one date after intoxicating her when she went to his shop for taking medicines. There are allegations of marriage under pressure and blackmailing as well.

2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against accused was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.02.2014 and after its committal, the case was assigned to this Court on 25.04.2014.

3. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 17.10.2014, charge for offences under section 376/328/506/363/366/496/120-B of the IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1 and her mother as PW2.

5. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in criminal matters, as approved by the "Committee to monitor proper implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual offences and child witnesses" have been followed.

6 The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she was married with one Pankaj Vaid and out of wedlock, two children were born. After some time, her husband started beating her after taking liquor and abused her. She filed a complaint under domestic violence against her husband and also for maintenance. She deposed that she has been residing at her matrimonial house with her children till date. She further deposed that accused was having the chemist shop in the same locality from where she used to take medicine of her kids. She says that while the divorce case with her husband was still pending, she married the accused on 12.11.2013. There were quarrels between them on small issues due to temperamental differences. She deposed that the complaint filed by her was typed by a typist of which the contents were not read over to her. She identified her signatures in the complaint. She denied that she was taken for medical examination. She admitted her photographs with the accused and stated categorically that she did not want to say anything against the accused.

7. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her.

8. In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for State, she has denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-1/A her typed complaint had been read over to her before being filed. She denied that on 02.07.2014, the accused had administered some intoxicating substance to her with intent to commit rape and had raped her thereafter. She denied that after the commission of rape, the accused had shown her an obscene video of her prepared by him and had threatened to kill her and her children, if she disclosed the incident to anyone. She denied that after 02.07.14, the accused raped her several times after threatening her that he would upload her video on the Internet. She denied that on 15.11.12, the accused threatened to kidnap her children and to show the video to his family members, if she did not agree to marry her. She denied that she was forced to marry the accused or that her signatures were obtained forcibly or that she was taken to Sikar, Rajasthan. She denied that on 17.11.12, her children were kidnapped by accused or that she was forced to marry the accused on 18.11.12 and to sign the affidavit dated 20.11.2012. She denied that on 11.05.13, she had called her parents and had asked them to follow the directions of accused, they followed the directions as her children were with the accused who had promised to return them afterwards. She denied that accused had given the photographs of her marriage with him to her first husband and was blackmailing her. She admitted that a petition had been filed by the accused for declaration of her marriage with accused as null and void.

9. The mother of the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 who stated that the marriage of her daughter with her first husband was not going well. She deposed that her daughter had married the accused out of free will in her presence and presence of her husband at Sikar, Rajasthan. After marriage, the prosecutrix and accused had resided at Uttam Nagar. She deposed that she did not want to depose anything against the accused. She was cross- examined by ld. Add. Prosecutor. In her cross examination, she stated that her statement was not recorded by the police as told by her. She stated that she did not tell the police that her daughter had married the accused in Arya Samaj Mandir on 18.11.12. She deposed that she did not say to the police that she had told the accused that her daughter could not marry him as she had not obtained divorce from her earlier husband. She denied having asked her daughter about her children at the time of solemnization of marriage and accused having told her not to worry about her children. She denied that children of her daughter were kidnapped by the accused or the accused had married her after kidnapping her children on 17.11.2012. She denied giving the statement in the court after being won over by the accused.

10. The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being raped by the accused. She has deposed that accused has not committed any offence against her and nor deposed anything incriminating against the accused. She has deposed that she had married with the accused out of her free consent. Her mother also did not speak anything against the accused. In fact, the mother stated that marriage between the prosecutrix and accused was voluntary and was attended by her and her husband.

11. In these circumstances, as both prosecution witnesses the prosecutrix and her mother, who are the main witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case and more importantly have not assigned any criminal role to the accused not deposing anything incriminating against the accused, the precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself, the most material witness, as well as the complainant has not supported the prosecution case and is hostile.

12. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C of the accused is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.

13. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix, PW1 & PW-2 her mother, who happen to be the material witnesses, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:

"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."

14. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.

15. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilt of an accused, particularly in cases where the prosecutrix has herself claimed that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence.

16. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused is guilty of the charged offences. There is no material on record to show that pros- ecutrix had gone to the shop of the accused on 02.07.12 as she had high fever or that the accused had asked her to stay there and had given her some medicines. There is no evidence to suggest that the accused had stopped her under pretext that she may fall down on way. There is nothing in the evidence to show that prosecutrix had fallen unconscious and on regaining consciousness had found the accused committed rape upon her. There is nothing to suggest that at that time, the accused had told her to marry her and to keep her children and to threaten her that in case she made a complaint to the police, he would highlight her video which he had made in the phone. There is nothing in the evidence to show that she was living away from her husband and that accused threatened her that he would tell everything to her husband. The prosecutrix has not uttered that the accused had threatened her that his brother in law was head constable in Delhi Police and that he would manage everything and make her life hell. The prosecutrix has not deposed that accused called her several times thereafter and made physical relations with her after threatening her that he would put her video on the Internet. She has not deposed that being a helpless woman, she for the sake of honour and safety of her minor children agreed to the demands of the accused. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that on 15.01.12, the accused went to the house of prosecutrix and told her that he wanted to marry her and that if she didn’t agree, he would get her children kidnapped. She has also not deposed that accused threatened that he will upload her video because of which she would commit suicide or that he asked her to prepare her parents for the marriage without telling them anything. She has not stated that the accused had kidnapped her son on 17.11.12 and had taken her to the temple where he married her against her will on 18.11.12 or that later, he got prepared an affidavit from the court on 20.11.12 and obtained her forcible signature. She has denied having been taken to Sikar for marriage and her parents being called there. She has not deposed that the accused gave the documents to her husband or that her husband and accused were in conspiracy with each other and had talked with each other.

17. From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offence of rape, kidnapping, intoxication, threatening, forcible obtaining of signatures. There is no evidence of conspiracy between Pankaj and the accused absolutely. The evidence of the prosecutrix makes it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place. She has categorically deposed that she had married the accused out of her free will in presence of her parents.

18. Consequently, accused is hereby acquitted of all the charges framed against him

19. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.

20. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.

21. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.

22. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.

Announced in the open Court on this 22nd day of April, 2016.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ)

Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)­01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

wife with a 14 yr old son killed husband to marry NRI she met on social media !!

Wife got Punjab cop killed to marry NRI she never met

TNN | Apr 22, 2016, 11.24 PM IST

Representative image

Chandigarh: The wife of a Punjab Police constable had got him killed to marry an NRI youth she had developed a friendship with over social networking sites but had never met and paid Rs 5 lakh to three contract killers, police said on Friday.

The decomposed body of Jasvir Singh was recovered from a canal near Karnal on April 19. The police arrested Sukhdeep Kaur, the wife, and Jagtar Singh, 22, Gurjinder Singh alias Neeta, 21, and Sahib Singh, 20, of Patiala. Sahib Singh was a BCA first-year student in a leading private institute in Rajpura, Patiala. Gurjinder Singh was pursuing BTech from Thapar College in Patiala, while Jagtar Singh completed his hotel management course from a leading college in Landran.

Police said NRI Harjit Singh, 29, who hailed from Bathinda, was working in Bahrain and unaware about the marital status of Sukhdeep, who has a 14-year-old son.

Inspector Baldev Kumar of Mauli Jagran police station said, "The accused disclosed they mixed sleeping pills in the water of Jasvir, removed his clothes except undergarments and threw him into the Bhakra canal near Patiala on February 3. The accused had also destroyed his uniform."

On March 3, Kaur — as per their plan — lodged a missing person’s complaint with Chandigarh police, claiming her husband had left for joining the duty but never returned .

Police sources claimed the killing came to light when Sahib Singh was arrested in Patiala along with two others in connection with an attack on a police party. Sahib Singh and Deepak and Manpreet were lodged in Patiala jail and later their custody obtained. Later, Sahib Singh during interrogation clarified that Deepak and Manpreet were not involved in the murder and his accomplices were Jagtar Singh and Gurinder Singh.

The police have given a clean chit to the NRI, who came to India about a fortnight back when Chandigarh police personnel contacted his family members in Bathinda.

ASP (east) Guriqbal Singh Sidhu said, "We quizzed Harjit and concluded he had not even met the wife of the police constable. In her interrogation report, Kaur claimed she knew that to marry the NRI youth, she must kill her husband."

Police claimed the plain clothes and uniform of the victim were recovered. A case was registered at Mauli Jagran police station.

source :

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ city / chandigarh articleshow/51949074.cms

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

For once, a committee by BJP’s defense minister seems to be doing good things for honest men!!

For once, a committee by the BJP’s defense minister seems to be doing good things for honest men!!We hope this continues and our brave soldiers are protected from fake cases

News : MOD panel frowns on increase in awarding maintenance allowance to wives in military

army march.jpg

A panel of experts of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has slammed the defence services for passing orders granting maintenance allowance to wives of military personnel from their salaries, especially in Army, without due investigation and scrutiny.

The panel, in its report, has criticised the defence services for passing such orders in, essentially, what are private matrimonial disputes. The Army, Navy and the Air Force Acts provide that the competent authority can impose a cut upto 33 per cent on pay and allowances which can be paid to the wife as maintenance on her application. With growing matrimonial disputes, the number of such applications has increased in the last few years especially with the Army granting maintenance to the spouses on almost all applications through non-speaking orders without providing reasons.

An expert committee constituted by the Defence Minister on litigation has however observed that the exceptional provisions are being invoked in a routine manner by defence authorities. It has also found that the system does not have the wherewithal or ability to examine the veracity or truthfulness of the allegations and counter-allegations of both parties which is basically a matter of evidence that can only be weighed and dealt with by civil courts under law legislated for this specific purpose. The panel has said that this exercise can only be carried out under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the relevant Marriage Acts, rather than the defence services getting into what may fundamentally be a civil or private dispute between a husband and his wife.

The panel has also observed that even the Army HQ has expressed concern on the issue and that maintenance is meant to tide over a difficult financial situation and not to lead life on someone else’s expense. It has recorded that the award of maintenance results in grave civil consequences for an individual wherein a cut is imposed on his pay and should be taken as a serious matter and not routine. Moreover, it may not be initiated on the fact whether the spouse is working or not but whether she has the capacity to work or not, further adding that a situation cannot be allowed to prevail wherein an otherwise qualified/educated spouse stops working or refuses to take up a job in order to claim maintenance.

The Panel has stated that though defence personnel have a bounden duty to maintain their families, such issues should be left to Courts to decide based on evidence. Surprised at the acceptance of an unusually high number of applications by the Army, the committee has questioned, “does it mean that it was found that out of the total applications received, such a high percentage of officers were found wanting in their familial and marital obligations? If yes, then what were the tools available to reach that conclusion?”

There has been a rise of litigation on the subject in the past. Recently, a Lt Col had averred that his wife held a Doctorate and also working in a real estate firm but still was awarded maintenance by the Army. Another officer had stated that his wife had a degree of MSc as well as BEd and was earning a huge amount from tuitions and he had elderly parents to look after but still deduction of arrears of maintenance had resulted in disbursement of more than Rs 30,000 to the wife per month while he was being disbursed a amount of just Rs 6000. Another serving Colonel had stated that was being expected put his earnings at the disposal of his wife who was fully qualified and competent to work and was actually working.

Source


http://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/english/the-indian-express-epaper-indexp/mod-panel-frowns-on-increase-in-awarding-maintenance-allowance-to-wives-in-military-newsid-51511377


FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

use HINDU law to make money… attack HINDU temples to get fame !!

The same feminists fighting HINDU traditions and enter GarbhaGriha ( inner sanctum of temples ) want to use HINDU Marriage ACT or HINDU adoptions and mainT. act to get max moolah !!!

So use HINDU when it suits you, trash HINDUs when it doesn’t  !!!

and somehow the society hasn’t woken up so far !!

#‎husband_day‬ .. one day per year !!

There is one day per year called husband appreciation day…. Then there is one day called Mother’s Day… There are a couple of days for your dog & your cat… The rest of the days are for the wife, to work and pay alimony and follow family court rules !!!