Harsh Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant on application for leave to file appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant contended that the marriage between complainant and accused-respondent did took place on 4.12.2007 in which a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was spent by her father and when the complainant reached her matrimonial house she was pressurized to ask her father to give a I-10 car in dowry and when she showed inability for the same, she was physically and cruelly treated by the accused, who purchased the car by selling her jewellery; that a monthly instalment of Rs.8,000/- was paid to accused and she was ousted from the matrimonial house; that the accused is a Branch Manager in Net Ambit Company in Delhi and earns Rs.45,000/- per month; that the accused had developed illicit relationship with one Pooja Singh and found the complainant the accused and Pooja Singh in objectionable stage; that in order to prove her case, the complainant produced herself and her brother Vikrant Kulshrestha as P.W.-1 & P.W.-2 respectively; that it was proved from the evidence on record that the complainant was treated with cruelty in connection with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and since the accused-respondent, the husband of complainant-appellant was in illicit relationship with Pooja Singh and has also filed Divorce Petition against her, it is sufficient to hold mental cruelty having been caused by the accused-respondent; that series of litigation is pending between the parties and the accused-respondent has not even made payment of maintenance amount granted by the Magistrate in proceedings under Domestic Violence Act which also amounts to cruelty; that learned trial court has acted wrongly in drawing adverse inference against the complainant-appellant for not producing her father in evidence while he was not a material witness; that evidence of prosecution cannot be considered on the basis of number of witnesses rather it is to be considered on the basis of quality of evidence; that the learned trial court has acted wrongly in relying on the compromise dated 23.10.2011 between the parties while this compromise was a broken compromise and was not complied or obeyed with by the accused and his family members; that the learned trial court has acted wrongly in holding that the charges under Section 498A I.P.C. have not been proved against the accused and consequently acted wrongly in acquitting the accused-respondent from the charges under Section 498A I.P.C.; that the appellant has every hope of success in appeal. Per contra, learned A.G.A. supported the impugned judgment and contended that the appeal has no force.
(3.) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that as per averments made in the complaint the marriage of complainant with respondent no.2 was solemnized on 4.12.2007 at an expenses of Rs.3,50,000/- and after the marriage the demand of I-10 car as dowry is alleged to have been made. It has also been stated in the complaint that on showing inability of her father to fulfil the demand of dowry, the complainant was physically and cruelly treated by the accused, who purchased the car by selling her jewellery and a monthly instalment of Rs.8,000/- was paid to accused by her father. The trial court has discussed and analysed the evidence on record in detail and has observed that the registered letters, which were allegedly sent to Superintendent of Police have not been proved and the allegation in respect of purchase of car by sale of her jewellery and regarding the alleged demand as dowry and payment of instalment @ Rs.8,000/- per month are also self-contradictory. In the complaint states that the car was purchased by selling her jewellery while in her statement on oath the complainant has stated that her jewellery was pawned with Muthoot Finance Company for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and that the car was purchased in July, 2009 while her ornaments were pawned after 6-7 months from July, 2009. It is also pertinent to mention that trial court has noticed that while the car is alleged to have been got financed by father of first informant, the complainant has stated that her father used to give an instalment of Rs.8,000/- per month to the accused-respondent while her brother P.W.-2 has stated that the father used to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the complainant-appellant and she used to withdraw it through ATM and pay to the accused-respondent, which the complainant herself does not say and there is material contradiction on this point.;