Krishna vs Govt. Of N.C.T Of Delhi on 28 February, 2023

[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Krishna vs Govt. Of N.C.T Of Delhi on 28 February, 2023

 IN THE COURT OF SH. R.L. MEENA: ADDL. SESSIONS
     JUDGE-05: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI

Criminal Appeal No. 79/2021
CNR No. DLSW01-006985-2021

Krishna,
W/o Sh. Jitender Kumar,
D/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan,
R/o House No. 51, Gopal Nagar,
N-Block, Near Nanakpiao,
Najafgarh, Delhi - 110085.
                                                                 .... Appellant
                                        VERSUS

1. Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi

2. Smt. Phoolwati
   W/o Sh. Rajender

3. Sh. Rajender
   S/o Late Sh. Kali Ram

Both residents of :
Village & Post Office Gubhana,
District - Jhajjar, Haryana                                    .... Respondents

Date of institution                             : 04.08.2021
Date of reserving the order                     : 23.01.2023
Date of pronouncement                           : 28.02.2023

                                    JUDGMENT:

1. This is an appeal under Section 372 & 378 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) preferred by Krishna, complainant/appellant against the impugned judgment dated 03.06.2021 passed by the court of Ms. Shivani Chauhan, Learned MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in FIR No. 42/2011, PS : CAW Nanak Pura, Delhi under sections 498A/406/34 IPC whereby accused Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 1/59 Phoolwati and Rajender (respondents herein) have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and complainant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- jointly to the accused Phoolwati and Rajender as a compensation. Further, it has been directed by learned Trial Court to register an FIR against the complainant and other persons for filing false documents.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Smt. Krishna got married to accused Jitender (since Proclaimed offender) on 08.11.2008. Accused Rajender is the father-in-law and Smt. Phoolwati is the mother-in-law of the complainant. No child was born from from this wedlock. Complainant Krishna was and continues to be a Constable in Delhi Police. At the time of marriage, she was deputed at Police Headquarters. The father-in-law Sh. Rajender was working in the Indian Air Force and was posted at Assam at that time. He was posted at Hindon, Gaziabad with effect from 20.09.2010. The complainant alongwith her husband & mother-in-law Phoolwati lived at the matrimonial home at Naraina, Delhi while the father-in-law remained posted at Assam. It was alleged that there was a misrepresentation at the time of marriage about profession of accused Jitender. It was allegedly represented that the husband Jitender was a Public Prosecutor whereas he was a LDC at Tis Hazari Courts. It was further alleged that immediately after the marriage, in-laws and the husband of the complainant started torturing her for bringing inadequate dowry and Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 2/59 raised demand for cash, car and computer. The complainant was further forced to give her salary to the mother-in-law after marriage which she allegedly gave till August 2010. On various occasions, her husband had withdrawn money by using ATM card of the complainant without her consent. On one occasion, demand of Rs. 4-5 lakhs was made by accused. The father of complainant is alleged to have given Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant which she allegedly gave to her husband in pursuance of his demand. The mother-in-law and sister-in-law are alleged to have removed jewellery and other valuable articles from the possession (sandook) of the complainant and also forced her to handover muh dikhai money. It is alleged that complainant's entire streedhan was entrusted to the mother-in-law Smt. Phoolwati which was retained by her. The complainant is alleged to have demanded the return of streedhan at the time of marriage of her cousin sister which was not returned by the mother-in-law. The streedhan is still stated to be in the possession of the mother-in-law. The mother-in-law is stated to have demanded gold kada, gold ring & gold chain at the time of first Karwa Chauth on 07.10.2009. On another occasion Rs. 10 lakhs were demanded. When she refused to fulfill the demand of Rs. 10 lakhs, she was thrown out of the matrimonial house after being beaten and asked not to return without money. The accused are also alleged to have pressurized the complainant to obtain loan and had beaten her upon refusal. The complainant lived at the matrimonial home at Naraina till 12.09.2010. Complainant was also Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 3/59 alleged to have been beaten by the mother-in-law and nanad on 31.10.2010 at the door of their house at Hindon, Ghaziabad.

3. Accused were summoned by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.07.2013. On 20.10.2015, charge for the offence under Section 498A was framed against both the accused, namely, Rajender Singh and Phoolwati (in-laws of the complainant). Additional charge under Section 406 IPC was also framed against the accused Phoolwati by the learned Trial Court. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined fourteen witnesses in total. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 21.08.2019. Accused persons also led evidence in their defence and examined eleven witnesses.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant/complainant preferred the present appeal, notice of which was given to the State/respondent.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Ashok Tobaria, counsel for the appellant and Ms. Madhumeet Kapur, counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 and perused the record carefully.

6. Before dealing the arguments of the counsels of both the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the case law dealing the appeal against the acquittal order referred by counsel for the respondent.

6A In case titled as Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. The State of Gujarat decided on Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 4/59 02.05.1996, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraph No. 7 that "before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the Trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in Judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstratively unsustainable. If the appellate Court Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 5/59 answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only -

reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above principals we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not".

6B In case titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, decided on 28.07.2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment that "the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all".

7. In the light of law laid down in the aforesaid cases, now I take up the arguments of the counsel for the appellant Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 6/59 pointwise.

A. Qua date of knowledge of husband's (accused Jitender) actual profession.

It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that in paragraph No. 43 of the judgment " it is stated that on one hand, the complainant says that she became aware about the actual employment of accused after one year of marriage. On the other hand, she deposes that she got to know about the same after few days and had also informed her brother about the same".

It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that appellant during her deposition has never said that when her brother Hari Om visited her matrimonial house two days after the marriage, she informed him that Phoolwati did not behave with her properly and that Jitender was not a Public Prosecutor and is only LDC in Tis Hazari Courts. Whereas only in her complaint to CAW Cell, she had stated that she came to know that after about a year of marriage regarding her husband's actual profession. It is further submitted that the said observation of the learned Trial Court qua the information of the actual employment of her husband is baseless and not found in the testimony of the appellant/victim.

7.1 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that since there was a material contradictions regarding information of actual employment of accused Jitender (husband of the appellant), therefore, learned Trial Court has given correct observation. Moreover, appellant was well aware about the employment of her husband as LDC Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 7/59 in Tis Hazari Courts. Appellant was Constable at the time of her marriage and she was posted near the Tis Hazari Courts. The family members of the appellant visited at the Tis Hazari Courts for ascertaining the employment of accused Jitender as LDC before the marriage. 7.2 After having gone through the submissions of both the parties, and perusal of the record, I find that the main argument of the counsel for the appellant is that appellant came to know about the actual employment of her husband being LDC at Tis Hazari Courts after about one year of her marriage whereas learned trial Court has wrongly observed that appellant gave a contradictory statement by saying that she came to know of the actual employment of her husband after few days of her marriage and had also informed the said fact to her brother. Perusal of the record, I find that appellant has stated in her complaint Ex.PW1/A referred to CAW Cell that she came to know after one year of her marriage that her husband was a LDC in the Court. Perusal of the testimonies of the PWs, particularly, PW-5 Dilip Singh, PW-11 Hari Om recorded on 29.03.2019 and 30.05.2019 respectively, it is apparent that family members of the appellant were aware after few days of marriage of appellant that the husband of appellant was not a Government Advocate and he was a clerk in Government office. In view of the said testimonies, learned Trial Court has correctly observed that appellant has given contradictory statement regarding the knowledge of actual employment of her husband. Moreover, appellant is Constable in Delhi Police before her marriage and her Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 8/59 family member i.e. father and brothers may have easily enquired about the actual employment of the husband of the appellant. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant was not aware about the job of her husband Jitender being LDC at Tis Hazari Courts.

B. Qua alleged taunts for not bringing sufficient dowry.

8. The second argument of the counsel for the appellant is that learned Trial Court found the contradictions in the final complaint & FIR, which is always the replica of the complaint. Moreover, it was Itla Pesh Bandi dated 12.09.2010 and not the complaint which is exhibited as Ex.PW1/F. Rather the same was given as precautionary measures, and till that time, she had not thought about filing any cases against the accused persons/respondents No. 2, 3 and appellant's husband and the same can be seen as a corroborating piece of evidence. The allegations to have demanded computer, cash & car, if not mention in complaint dated 25.10.2010 (Ex.PW1/E) and 02.11.2010 rather stated in brief, to be mentally, physically and economically tortured by the accused persons which included everything. Moreover, the complaints should be the replica of each other is neither required nor demanded as per law. Moreover, these complaints are focusing on how she was ousted from the matrimonial house on 12.06.2010, and when she finally decided to file a detailed complaint after losing all hopes of reuniting, appellant/victim, averred in detail in the complaint given to crimes against women cell (CAW Cell) but there is no Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 9/59 contradiction in any of the complaints and more so material in nature while deciding the case. 8.1 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that since there was material contradictions in the testimony of the complaint from her previous complaints as well as improvements in the testimonies of the appellant, therefore, learned Trial Court has not believed the version of appellant qua the alleged taunts regarding insufficient dowry.

8.2 Before dealing the submissions of both the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the observations of learned Trial Court regarding qua the alleged taunts for not bringing insufficient dowry.

44. Complainant, in her final complaint & FIR, has alleged that her mother in law started taunting her for not bringing enough cash and dowry and had also raised demand for car & cash. During her deposition also she had stated that from the first day of the marriage, accused Phoolwati, Rajender, Jitender alongwith sister in law taunted her for bringing her less dowry and also that the articles given in marriage were below their status. They are alleged to have demanded computer, cash & car. These allegations are not mentioned in document dated 12.09.2010 or complaints dated 25.10.2010 (Ex.PW1/D), 02.11.2010 (Mark D). Per contra, complainant, in her complaint dated Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 10/59 27.11.2010 (Ex.PW1/E) and complaint to National Commission of Women received by it on 01.12.2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'NCW complaint dated 01.12.2010) has averred that "Shaadi k baad kuch dino tak mujhe pyar dular se rakha gaya". If the accused had allegedly started taunting the complainant from the first day of marriage and has raised demand for cash, computer & car as alleged above, then why would the complainant not mention these allegations in above mentioned complaints but aver that she was kept nicely and with love for some days after the marriage. This contradiction is material in nature and has not been explained by the prosecution. The omission of these allegations in any of the prior complaints referred above raises serious doubts on the genuineness of the allegations. The possibility that these allegations were added as an afterthought cannot be ruled out.

8.3 After having gone through the submissions of counsels of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that main allegation of the appellant in her deposition that from the first day of marriage, accused Phoolwati, Rajender (in- laws), Jitender (husband) alongwith sister-in-law taunted her for bringing less dowry and also that articles given in the marriage were below their status. They alleged to have demanded computer, cash and car. Perusal of previous Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 11/59 complaint of complainant that is dated 12.09.2010 or complaint dated 25.10.2010 (Ex.PW1/D), 02.11.2010 (Mark D), I find that the aforesaid allegations are not mentioned therein. Moreover, appellant/ complainant in her complaint dated 27.11.2010 (Ex.PW1/E) and complaint to National Commission of Women received by it on 01.12.2010 has averred that "Shaadi k baad kuch dino tak mujhe pyar dular se rakha gaya". In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned Trial Court has rightly observed that if the accused had allegedly started taunting the complainant from the first day of marriage and raised the demand for cash, computer and car as alleged above, then why would the complainant not mentioned these allegations in above mentioned complaint but avers that she was kept nicely and with love for some days after marriage. Learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the fact that the aforesaid contradiction is material in nature and has not been explained by the prosecution and the omissions of these allegations in any of the prior complaints referred above raises serious doubts on the genuineness of investigation. The aforesaid doubt is also supported by the appellant's own testimony, particularly, when she admitted in her cross-examination that no demand of dowry was made from her and her family members prior of her marriage.

C. Qua taking of keys of Sandook and removal of costly clothes and jewellery by mother-in-law.

9. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that in Paragraph No. 47 of the judgment dated 03.06.2021, it is Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 12/59 stated that "the complainant, on one hand, stated that the keys of the sandook were taken by the accused before her visit for pag phera whereas, during her testimony, she deposed that key was taken after her return from second pag fera on 25.12.2008". The Trial Court has found the same contradictory and material in nature and has remained unexplained. But interestingly, appellant/victim had nowhere in her original complaint to CAW Cell averred that keys of Sandook were taken by the accused before her visit for Pag Phera.

9.1 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that learned Trial Court after considering the material facts of complaint dated 21.01.2011 (Ex.PW1/A) and the testimony of appellant/complainant has rightly observed that there is material contradictions regarding taking key of Sandook and removal of costumes and jewellery by mother-in-law.

9.2 After having gone through the submissions of counsel for both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that complainant has alleged in her complaint dated 21.01.2011 Ex.PW1/A with this effect that "meri sass Phoolwati or nanad Pinki (Jyoti) ne shadi ke bad mujse meri sandook ki chabiya le li thi or usme se bina meri jankari ke sara saman nikal liya tha, meri kimte kapde, gehne or jo paise mujhe papa ne maan samman ke liye diye the wo nikal liye or mujhe jo paise sasural se muh dikhaye ke liye mile the woh meri sass ne le liye the".

"Shadi mein mujhe mere papa ne gale ka haar, sone ki angudi, tops, pajeb, chutki, sone ki jhumki de thi, mere Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 13/59 papa ne mere sasural walo ko dadi saas ke tops, mere saas phoolwati ke tops, meri nanad ke tops, mere sasur ki anguthi, mere devar Sonu ki anguthi, mere pati ki sone ki chain, anguthi avam gadhi di thi. Jab mein dubara pag phera pe aie, toh maine apne ghar par saas or nanad ke vyavahar ke bare mein mayke mein kuch nahi bataya tha.

9.3 After perusal of the complaint dated 21.1.2011 (Ex.PW1/A), it shows that after marriage of complainant, the mother-in-law Phoolwati and sister-in-law allegedly took the key of the Sandook containing her valuable articles and jewellery from her but perusal of her testimony, it appears that after 10-15 days of her marriage, she went to her parents home and come back to her matrimonial house on 25.12.2008 after that her mother-in- law and sister-in-law took the keys of his box (sandook) from her on pretext for safe keeping her jewellery. The word "pag phera" indicates the visiting of new bride at her matrimonial house. The word "dubara pag phera" has been used by the appellant in her complaint dated 21.1.2011 which mean second visit of appellant at her matrimonial house. Bare perusal of complaint dated 21.1.11 and testimony, it appears that learned Trial Court has rightly observed that "complainant on one hand stated that the keys of the sandook were taken by the accused before her first visit for pag phera whereas during her testimony, she deposed that keys were taken after her return from second pagphera on 25.12.2008. There is no error in the said finding.

Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 14/59

D. Qua demand of payslip and salary by mother-in- law:

10.The other argument of counsel for the appellant is that learned Trial Court in its judgment, particularly in Para No. 52 observed that "even a bare perusal of Ex. C1 i.e., Axis Bank statement of the complainant shows that there was no material change in her withdrawal pattern after marriage. The complainant continued to withdraw money in the same pattern after marriage as was done by her prior to marriage. No adverse presumption can be drawn against the in-laws merely on this account more specifically when there is no substantial change in the withdrawal pattern of complainant as discussed above. It is thus held that the prosecution has failed to prove the forceful demand of salary by mother in law beyond pales of reasonable doubt".

10.1 It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that bare perusal of the aforesaid observation of judgment, it seems that the Trial Court is more focused to prove the accused person's innocence rather than delivering justice, hence it seems that the Trial Court picks and chooses statements of the bank account of the appellant/victim. It is apparent from bare perusal that the withdrawal pattern before marriage in October and November 2008 is huge in comparison to the earlier withdrawal pattern and that is obvious because of appellant/victim marriage in December 2008. It is also remarkable to note that in May 2009, the withdrawal is not Rs. 12,000/- rather it is Rs. 17,600/- as observed in judgment by the Trial Court. It is a version of Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 15/59 the appellant/victim that she was not at her matrimonial home between June to September 2009 and she never claimed that she made any payment to her in-laws/accused persons respondent No. 2, 3 and the appellants husband, during that period. But it is further interesting as to why the Trial Court has not mentioned the withdrawal amount in October 2009 in its judgment. The withdrawal in October 2009 was Rs. 78,000/- and appellant/victim had averred in her complaint and during chief and cross- examination that after returning from her parental house, she was forced to withdraw Rs. 40,000/- on 16 th October and thereafter Rs. 35,000/- on the 17th of October but the Trial Court ignored the same, just to show the uniform withdrawal pattern, before and after marriage which is inherently wrong. Therefore, the Trial Court's way of appreciation of evidence is against the settled law of the land and also settled precedent of law.

10.2 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that respondents have never pressurized to the appellant to withdraw the money from her account. Learned Trial Court has correctly observed the fact that there was no material change in her withdrawal pattern after marriage. 10.3 After having gone through the submissions of counsels of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that the main allegation of the appellant is that respondents forced her to withdraw the money from her account. In order to appreciate the said allegations of the complainant, learned Trial Court has compared the withdrawal pattern of the appellant i.e. before her marriage Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 16/59 w.e.f January, 2008 to November, 2008 and after her marriage i.e. April 2009 to September, 2009. Bare perusal of the said statement of account of the appellant Ex.C1 reveals that there was no material change in her withdrawal pattern after marriage. Complainant continued to withdraw money as was done by her prior to marriage. In the absence of material change in her withdrawal pattern after marriage, learned Trial Court has correctly observed that no adverse presumption can be drawn against her in- laws. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that learned Trial Court has not appreciated the withdrawal of the amount i.e. Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- on 16.10.2009 and 17.10.2009 respectively and the said amount was withdrawn by the appellant due to pressure created by the respondents. The said contentions of the counsel for the appellant would be discussed in the next argument regarding forceful withdrawal of money from the ATM of Axis Bank Account of appellant by the husband Jitender.

E. Qua forceful withdrawal of money from ATM of Axis Bank Account of the complainant by husband Jitender.

11. The next argument of the counsel for the appellant is that the contradiction regarding PIN of the ATM of the appellant/victim is not material and does not sabotage the entire case of the prosecution. The appellant/victim had stated in her complaint to CAW Cell and during her chief examination that she alongwith her husband withdrew Rs. 40,000/- on 16.10.2009 and 17.10.2009, when Rs. 35,000/-

Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 17/59

was withdrawn, she told the PIN of her ATM to save herself from the atrocities but during cross-examination, she might have been confused in dates. It is further submitted that Court must have understood the mental status of the victim and also give weightage to the testimony of the appellant/victim, moreso, when it took place after 9 years from the date of incident and many discrepancies might occur due to fading off memory over time.

11.1 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submits that since there was no demand of money of the respondent from the appellant, therefore, there was no question of withdrawal of the said amount of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- by Jitender at their instance. It is further submitted that the said amount might have been withdrawn by the appellant for giving the said money to her parents. It is further submitted that learned Trial Court has correctly dealt the aforesaid fact.

11.2 After having gone through the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that it would be appropriate to reproduce the finding of learned Trial Court qua alleged withdrawal of money for proper appreciation of facts.

E.Qua forceful withdrawal of money from ATM of Axis bank account of complainant by husband Jitender :

53. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 16.10.2009, the father in law had demanded money from the complainant. The husband Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 18/59 Jitender had beaten her and had forcefully withdrawn Rs.40,000/- from the ATM at Punjab National Bank, Punjabi Bagh and had also beaten her by twisting her hand and the complainant shouted out of pain and accused Jitender pushed her. Accused Jitender abandoned her in the middle of road and went away while the complainant went for her duty alone. On the next date i.e., 17.10.2009 the mother in law verbally abused her, snatched her ATM card. Accused Jitender withdrew Rs.35,000/- from Naraina Bank ATM of the Axis Bank. During her testimony, the complainant deposed that on 16.10.2009, when she was cleaning the house on the occasion of Choti Diwali, all three accused asked money from her for constructing of boundary of village plot.

When she refused, Jitender forcibly withdrew Rs.40,000/- from the ATM. When the complainant protested, Jitender twisted her arm.

54. During her examination in the court, complainant categorically deposed that Jitender did not know the PIN of the ATM as he could not see the PIN when the same was being entered by her. In the morning, the quarrel took place with Jitender and then she disclosed the ATM PIN to him thereafter he Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 19/59 withdrew Rs.35,000/- from the ATM.

55. The complainant on one hand alleges that she was forced to withdraw Rs.40,000/- from the ATM by Jitender which was withdrawn in three installments. Per contra she has also deposed that the same was withdrawn by her as and her husband did not know the PIN. If the husband did not know the PIN then how he could have withdrawn the money himself as was alleged by the complainant in her complaint.

56. Further, the complainant did not raise any hue and cry at the ATM. If the complainant was indeed forced and an alteration took place at the ATM, the same would have been recorded in the CCTV installed at the ATM.

The CCTV Footage was a crucial piece of evidence and if produced, it could have corroborated the testimony. However, the same was not collected by the IO. No investigation was conducted by the IO qua this incident. The complainant also went to her Duty at that night normally and did not make any complaint. The conduct is highly unnatural more specifically when the accused Jitender had allegedly physically assaulted the complainant. In her complaint and testimony, complainant had deposed Jitender had withdrawn the sum of Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 20/59 Rs.40,000/- from the ATM. However, during cross examination, she admitted that the Jitender did not know the PIN of ATM on 16.10.2009 and the same was allegedly disclosed to Jitender on next day i.e., 17.10.2009.

57. Moreover, on one hand complainant deposed that accused Jitender and mother in law Phoolwati forced her to withdraw money and altercation took place with respect to withdrawal of money. Per contra, during her cross examination dated 27.08.2018 at Page no. 4, complainant voluntarily said that whenever her husband and in laws needed money they would talk very sweetly to her for one week before that. On one hand complainant deposes that altercation took place with respect to withdrawal of money and the same was forcefully withdrawn by accused Jitender. On the other hand, she voluntarily deposes that accused would talk sweetly to her before withdrawal of money. These two statements are inherently contradictory to each other. This contradiction is material in nature and has not been explained by the prosecution. 11.3 After having gone through the aforesaid finding of learned Trial Court qua forceful withdraw of money, I find that there is a contradictory statement of the appellant Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 21/59 regarding forceful withdrawal of money from the ATM of Punjab National Bank account of complainant by her husband. She alleged in her complaint that on 16.10.2009, the father-in-law had demanded money from her. The husband Jitender had beaten her and had forcefully withdrawn Rs. 40,000/- from ATM of Punjab National Bank. On the other hand, she deposed that said amount was withdrawn by her as her husband did not know the PIN. It is to be noted here that counsel for the appellant has also not disputed the aforesaid contradictions, however, he argued that Court must have understood the mental status of victim and also give weightage to the testimony of the appellant/victim, moreso when, it took place after about 9 years from the date of incident and minute discrepancies might occur due to fading off memory over the time. The said argument is devoid of merit as appellant/victim must have been consistent on the material facts. In view of the said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that learned Trial Court has rightly observed that there is no material on record suggesting that accused persons forced the appellant to withdraw the money from her account from the ATM and further rightly held that there was no material change in her withdrawal pattern after marriage.

11.4 Now, coming on the other reasoning of learned Trial Court regarding CCTV footage, I find that learned Trial Court has also observed that "if the complainant was indeed forced and an altercation took place at the ATM, the same would have been recorded in the CCTV installed at Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 22/59 the ATM. The CCTV footage was a crucial piece of evidence and if produced, it could have corroborated the testimony. However, the same was not collected by the IO".

11.5 The said finding of learned Trial Court has been challenged by the counsel for the appellant stating that the said reasoning of learned Trial Court is inherently misconceived as the incident took place on 16.10.2009 whereas the FIR was lodged on 24.04.2011, about 16 months after the forceful act of withdrawal and CCTV footage of ATM booth can be preserved for a period of three months.

11.6 After having gone through the submissions advanced by counsel for the appellant, I agree with the submissions of the counsel for the appellant that the said CCTV footage could not be preserved by the IO as the alleged incident took place on 16.10.2009 whereas FIR was lodged on 24.04.2011, about 16 months after the alleged forceful act of withdrawal. CCTV footage of the ATM booth can be preserved for a maximum period of three months. I am of the considered view that the aforesaid reasoning of learned Trial Court was one of the additional reasoning while dealing the contention of appellant regarding forceful withdrawal of money from ATM by her husband which does not have much effect in the present case. F. Qua alleged demand of money for construction of village plot and giving of Rs. 3 lakh by the father of the complainant.

12.During the course of the arguments, counsel for the Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 23/59 appellant has challenged the finding of learned Trial Court qua the alleged demand of money for construction of village plot on the following grounds :-

a) Mother-in-law and father-in-law should be held guilty under the principle of constructive liability under Section 34 of the IPC.

b) The evidence of PW-4 Jasbir was not properly appreciated by learned Trial Court regarding loan of Rs. 3 lakhs.

12.1 On the first point, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant that appellant has specifically deposed in her testimony that the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was demanded by her husband, namely, Jitender for construction of village plot at the instance of mother-in-law and same was given to him in the presence of mother-in-law. Learned Trial Court while disbelieving the said testimony of appellant has wrongly held that complainant has not deposed about the alleged demand being made by the mother-in-law. It is further wrongly held that she has not deposed anything about the manner in which Phoolwati (mother-in-law) may have instigated Jitender to raise the demand. It is further submitted that in family dispute qua dowry harassment, not all family members directly made illegal demands but play passive role to instigate the others and therefore, Section 34 IPC rope the other accused persons.

12.2 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that since there was no evidence on record suggesting that mother-in-law demanded the money of Rs. 3 lakhs from the appellant, therefore, learned Trial Court correctly held Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 24/59 that there is no allegation to cruelty by Phoolwati (mother- in-law) in context of said demand.

12.3 After having gone through the submissions advanced by counsels for both the parties and perusal of the record, particularly, complaint dated 04.11.2010 and testimony of appellant, I find that there is a material improvement in her version. In complaint dated 04.11.2010, it is alleged that 4- 5 lakhs were demanded by Jitender for raising the constructions at Village Plot. In the said complaint, it is also stated by the complainant that her husband demanded the said amount for raising the constructions from her as his father was posted at Assam at that time. Complainant allegedly brought Rs. 3 lakhs from her father and gave it to her husband. During the testimony she deposed that this amount was demanded by Jitender at the instance of mother-in-law and was also given to him in the presence of mother-in-law. The complainant has not deposed about the alleged demand being made by mother-in-law Phoolwati. She has also not deposed anything about the manner in which Phoolwati may have instigated the husband Jitender to raise the demand. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned Trial Court has rightly observed that there is no allegation of cruelty by Phoolwati in context of his demand and the money was not given to Phoolwati. Accused Rajender was admittedly posted at Assam at the time of this alleged occurrence and has no role to play in this regard. There is no incriminating evidence qua accused Phoolwati and Rajender. In the absence of specific allegation against mother-in-law Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 25/59 regarding demand of Rs. 3,00,000/-, she cannot be held guilty for the constructive liability under Section 34 IPC. 12.4 Now, coming on the second point regarding appreciation of testimony of PW-4. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that since there was a material on record, particularly, the testimony of appellant and her father that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was given to husband of appellant i.e. Jitender as per his demand after arranging the same from their neighbour, namely, Jasbir, PW-4 but learned Trial Court has disbelieved the said testimony of appellant and her father on the ground that partnership deed of J.B. Security was was executed on 27.03.2010 which was two months after the date of alleged loan. It was also observed by learned Trial Court that the partnership dead of J B Security itself was executed on 27.03.2010 which goes on to prove that the firm was either not in existence in January 2010 as alleged or was being run in contravention of the law. It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that J. B. Security as a firm was in existence since 1994 and the same is evident from the document exhibited as DW9/A and earlier it was run by the brother of PW4 i.e. Jagbir. It is further submitted that learned Trial Court has picked up and choose the reasoning of testimony as per the convenience. PW-4 has stated nowhere in his examination-in-chief that he had given Rs. 3,00,000/- to the father of the complainant in the mid January, 2010 out of personal cash of company's money but the same was stated during his cross-examination and not in chief. It is further submitted that if we see the entire Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 26/59 evidence as one piece of evidence of the prosecution witness Jasbir as PW4, it suggests that he lent the loan to the father of the appellant/victim from his personal earning and the same will not be discredited as testimony and more so when he testified the same after a period of about 8 to 9 years of giving the loan. It is further submitted that merely the net profit of the company J. B. Security was Rs. 32,457/- in the year 2009-2010, will not dent the testimony of PW-4 as the profit comes at the end of the year whereas the amount was given at the beginning of the year. 12.5 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that learned Trial Court after having gone through the evidence of PW-4 has correctly observed that the said firm was either not in existence in January 2010 as alleged or was being run in the contravention of law. Moreover, the balance sheet of J B Security for the financial year 2009- 2010 shows that the net profit of firm JB Security was Rs.32,457/- and the said fact was also corroborated by ITR of company. In view of the said fact, PW-4 was not in position to give loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the father of appellant.

12.6 After having gone through the submissions advanced by both the parties and perusal of the record, I find main contentions of the counsel for the appellant is that the testimony of PW-4 Jasbir has not been properly appreciated by learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that PW-4 has stated nowhere in his examination-in-chief that he gave Rs.3,00,000/- to the father of the complainant in the mid of January 2010 out of his personal cash from a Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 27/59 company earning but the same was stated during his cross- examination and not in chief. The evidence of PW-4 cannot be read in part and parcel. Perusal of the Trial Court Record, I find that since PW-4 Jasbir had categorically deposed that he gave a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the father of the appellant/complainant in the mid January, 2010 from his personal cash of company's money which indicates the said amount pertains to his company. The balance sheet of the J. B. Security also shows the net profit of the said firm was Rs. 32,457/- and the said fact is also corroborated by the ITR of the J. B. Security. The aforesaid net profit of said firm also creates doubt over the financial capacity of PW4, the testimony of DW-9 and document Ex.DW9/A, proved that partnership deed of J. B. Security itself was executed on 27.03.2010 which was two months after the date of alleged loan. DW-9 has proved that the license for running J. B Security was applied for by the firm on 25.09.2012 and was granted on 10.08.2015. Further, I find appellant/complainant has admitted in her cross- examination that she was not aware from where the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was arranged by her father for giving to her husband. It is highly improbable that appellant being daughter was not aware about the arrangement of loan amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- by her father. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned Trial Court, has rightly disbelieved the testimony of the PW-4 Jasbir regarding giving a alleged loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to father of appellant.

G. Qua pressurizing the complainant to take the loan.

Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 28/59

13.It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court had not perused the testimony of the appellant/victim with care including the documents. Regarding the medical document dated 23.08.2010, it was not MLC, hence there is no need to mention any injury and the same will not be ruled out that she had no injury inside her ear but at least something is there because of that medical advice given to her. Moreover, at that time the appellant/victim had not told the doctor about the beating by her husband. Whereas, the medical documents dated 31.05.2010 of DDU hospital would not suggest that the appellant/victim was not beaten merely because she had abdominal pain, that could have been because of beating. Both documents are not MLC as stated by the trial court in its judgment and because of that, there is no requirement to mention the injuries, scratches or contution, etc as the same was not prepared for the point of view of the investigation. Moreover, till that time the appellant/victim had not disclosed the domestic violence, with the hope that things will improve and her matrimonial life will be normalized over time. Whereas, the medical document corroborated the version of appellant/victim. 13.1 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that since the aforesaid medical document of the appellant i.e. 23.08.2010 and 31.05.2010 do not support the version of the appellant regarding alleged beating, therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly observed that absence of alleged injuries on the medical document is material in nature and raises serious doubt on the genuineness of the Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 29/59 allegations.

13.2 After having gone through the submissions of counsels of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that appellant has specifically alleged that her husband had beaten her on refusal to take loan for purchasing a flat due to which she started to bleed from the left ear. The main argument of counsel for the appellant is that the aforesaid medical document i.e. 31.05.2010 and 23.08.2010 are not MLC, therefore, there is no requirement to mention any injury. The aforesaid argument of the counsel for the appellant is devoid of merits as whenever any person goes to the hospital with the history of beating/physical assault then doctor mentions about the alleged beating as well as the injuries, if any. Absence of alleged injury on the medical documents i.e. 31.05.2010 and 23.08.2010, is material in nature and raises doubt on the genuineness of allegation.

H. Qua alleged incident of 17.05.2009

14.It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that it is the case of the appellant that she was on PCR duty at the night of 17.5.2009. In the evening of 17.05.2009, the accused Phoolwati had taunted her for not bringing cash, computer & car and asked her to hand over Muh Dikhai money. At that time, her father-in-law accused Rajender and her husband Jitender are also alleged to have been present at that time. It is also the case of the appellant that she was not fit on that day and had fever on that day but she went for duty and PCR had taken her to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for her treatment. However, the said PCR dropped her Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 30/59 back to the house at about 2-3 AM. It is further submitted that learned Trial Court discredited the said case/testimony of the appellant on the ground that OPD card of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital is torn from the side where the first letter of date was written and there is overwriting number 5 over top of the number 4 at the place where month has been written. It is also observed that no record was summoned by the prosecution from the hospital to prove this document or the date thereof. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that defence had not raised any objection regarding the said overwriting or the said cutting and they merely suggested in the cross-examination that medical documents are not pertaining to the physical assault. Therefore, when the defence has not raised any objections and accepted the same as genuine, then learned Trial Court should not step into shoes of the defence counsel. Moreover, if learned Trial Court wishes to find out the veracity of the allegations, it can be called under Section 165 of The Evidence Act.

14.1 On the contra, counsel for the respondent has submitted that learned Trial Court after having gone through the OPD card of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital has correctly formed an opinion that since the said document was in torn condition and there was overwriting, therefore, same cannot be relied upon and it was duty of the prosecution to summon the witness from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital regarding clarifications of the said cutting and overwriting.

14.2 After having gone through the submissions of Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 31/59 counsels of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that the main contention of the appellant is that on 17.05.2009, accused Phoolwati had taunted her for not bringing cash, computer and car. She also alleged that on the said date she was not fit and had fever and she had gone for duty and PCR took her to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. Appellant in support of her allegation filed OPD card for showing her illness on the day of alleged incident dated 17.05.2009. Perusal of the said OPD card, it appears that portion where first letter date is mentioned is torn and there is also overwriting of number 5 over the top of number 4 at the place where month has been written. In view of the said fact, learned Trial Court had rightly observed that since no record was summoned by the prosecution from the hospital to prove this document or the date thereof. Therefore, the said document makes it unsafe to rely upon.

14.3 The next argument qua alleged incident of 17.05.2009 of the counsel for the appellant is that learned Trial Court while discrediting the testimony of appellant regarding incident of 17.05.2009 also observed that appellant/victim had obtained the earned leave on 17.05.2009 and 18.05.2009 and not medical leave as per record brought by DW-5 and DW-4 which also raised doubt about the trust worthiness of the appellant/victim. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that it is on record that on 17.05.2009, she was on night duty and had fever, hence, PCR took her to the hospital for treatment and during her medical examination, the day change i.e. 18.05.2009 as the Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 32/59 OPD card stated time 1 am. Appellant/victim had not applied for leave but it was her senior who might have written earned leave instead of medical leave and their could have several reasons for the same but the appellant/victim has no role.

14.4 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that since DW-5 HC Devender Kumar and DW-4 Ct. Madhu have brought the leave record of the complainant/appellant from her department. They proved that complainant had obtained earned leave on 17.05.2009 and 18.05.2009. In view of the leave record of the complainant, it can be said that she was not on medical leave and the said leave record also contradicts and disprove the testimony of complainant that after the alleged incident she went for duty on 17.05.2009 and developed fever and was taken to hospital by the staff and brought back early in the morning.

14.5 After having gone through the submissions advanced by counsels of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that since DW-5 Devender and DW-4 Ct. Madhu has proved that appellant/victim was on earned leave on 17.05.2009 and 18.05.2009, therefore, the said record contradicts the testimony of complainant that after the alleged incident she went for duty on 17.05.2009 and developed fever and was taken to hospital by the staff and brought back early in the morning. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned Trial Court has rightly held that the aforesaid leaves of the appellant on 17.05.2009 and 18.05.2009 has the material contradictions Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 33/59 from the version of the appellant which strike at the very root of the allegation.

I. Qua alleged demand of gold kada and gold ring and time/occasion of the demand.

15.It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the appellant and her witnesses and the entire reasoning of the learned Trial Court is based upon the presumption and conjectures. It is further submitted that appellant/victim might have not mentioned the demand of gold kada and gold ring in her previous complaint as the complainant is not expected encyclopedia on all her bitter experiences but during chief and cross-examination explained the same. Moreover, appellant/victim had nowhere mentioned the date when her mother-in-law or any accused person's demand of gold kada and gold ring but soon after the marriage, they used to demand instead of two articles, the parents of victim had given four articles to satisfy the quench of the accused persons and for the sake of their daughter and that is why it was prepared in April 2009, so the same can be given to accused persons when they came to attend the marriage of appellant/victim's cousin sister i.e. 18.06.2009. Moreover, it is also apparent from the judgment that demand of gold articles was made at various stages during the appellant/victim's stay at her matrimonial home, therefore, there is no contradictions. 15.1 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that there are several contradictions regarding alleged demand of gold kada and gold ring, therefore, the said Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 34/59 allegation of demand of gold kada and gold ring could not be proved by the prosecution.

15.2 After having gone through the submissions advanced by counsels for both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that complainant has deposed that after 3-4 days of her marriage, her mother-in-law had stated her that Jitender (husband) was a Public Prosecutor and her parents had not given jewellery and demanded one gold kada and one gold ring from her parents. After perusal of the detailed complaints of the complainant Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E, I find that at the aforesaid demand of accused are not mentioned in the said complaints. It is the argument of the counsel for the appellant that demand of gold articles were made at various stages during the appellant's/victim's stay at her matrimonial home so there is no contradiction. The said argument of the counsel for the appellant is devoid of merit as I have earlier observed that appellant has not mentioned the aforesaid alleged demand of gold kada and gold ring in her previous complaints Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E, therefore, it cannot be said that the demand of gold articles were made at various stages during the appellant's/victim's stay at her matrimonial house. Further, I find that the rough estimate of the alleged purchase of jewellery is dated 21.04.2009 i.e. one month prior to the date of alleged demand whereas mother- in-law is alleged to have demanded the articles from the complainant on 20.05.2009/21.05.2009. In view of the said facts and circumstances, learned Trial Court has rightly Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 35/59 observed the said improvements is material improvements and has not been explained by the prosecution. J. Qua incident of 18.6.2009 alleged abandonment of complainant at her parental house.

16. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that Trial Court finds a contradictory statement of the appellant/victim as, "on one hand, the complainant states that the accused Jitender abandoned her at the parent's house and went to the matrimonial home alone. On the other hand, she had deposed that she did not return with her husband as he did not fulfill her demand. The Appellant/victim further deposed that after few months when her relatives started talking, she called her husband who then comes to take her back. No demand is alleged on this occasion or a precondition by the accused of taking the complainant back to the matrimonial house. Therefore, the Court reached the conclusion that the appellant/victim remained at her parent's home voluntarily, and there was no refusal on the part of any accused to take her back whoever comes promptly after her call".

16.1 It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that Trial Court while passing the judgment, is quite selective in picking a certain portion of the testimony of appellant/victim. There are contradictions regarding not taking the appellant/victim and where the appellant/victim Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 36/59 answered during cross-examination that she did not return to matrimonial house after the marriage of her cousin Santosh because her husband refused to bring her jewellery and her clothes to attend the marriage. But the contradictions are not such that same can hit the root and discredited the appellant/victim. Moreover, the Trial Court has to keep in mind that the cross-examination of the appellant took place after about 9 years of incident and minute contradictions might have occurred. It is further submitted that appellant did not remain at her parents house voluntarily rather she made several calls to her husband and mother-in-law who said that they will take her back only fulfilling their demand of gold articles and she would be taken back when their demands would be fulfilled.

16.2 On the contra, counsel for the respondent opposed the said arguments stating that learned Trial Court has rightly observed that there was material contradictions qua incident of 18.6.2009 regarding alleged abandonment of complainant at her parental house.

16.3 After having gone through the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the Trial Court record, I find that there is material contradictions in the version of complainant regarding abandonment at her parental house. Complainant had alleged that on 18.6.2009, she was at her parental house for sometime on the occasion of her bua's daughter. She asked her husband to bring her jewellery and clothes, however, he had not brought any jewellery. She also alleged that accused Jitender had refused to bring her Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 37/59 back with him at the matrimonial home and mother-in-law Phoolwati had made fulfillment of demands as a precondition for complainants return to the matrimonial house. It is to be noted here that complainant has stated differently in her cross-examination dated 27.8.2018, that she did not return to her matrimonial house with her husband as he had not brought her jewellery and clothes. In view of the said contradictions, the learned Trial Court has rightly observed that on one hand, complainant states that he accused Jitender abandoned her at parents house and went to matrimonial house alone. On the other hand, she herself did not return with her husband as he did not fulfill her demand. Further, she also deposed that after few months when her relatives started talking, she called her husband who then came to take her back. No demand is alleged on this occasion or as a precondition by the accused for taking the complainant back to her matrimonial house. In view of the said deposition, learned Trial Court has correctly observed that complainant remained at her parents house voluntarily, there was no refusal on the any part of any accused to take her back who rather came promptly after her call.

K. Qua demand of Rs. 10 lacs alleged incident of 12.09.2010.

17.It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that it is the case of the appellant that on 12.09.2010, accused Phoolwati and Jitender had demanded Rs. 10 lakhs from the complainant and when she expressed her inability to fulfill the demand, accused Phoolwati, Jitender (husband) Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 38/59 and sister-in-law had beaten her. At that time, accused Rajender was also present there. It is further submitted by learned Trial Court while discrediting the testimony of the appellant has observed that since accused Rajender was posted at Assam till 12.09.2010 as per testimony of DW-7, therefore, it has been proved that the accused Rajender was at Assam on the date of alleged incident. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that learned Trial Court while passing the judgment, had defended the accused Rajender/respondent No. 3 while step into shoes of the defence counsel and the learned Trial Court unreasonably stretched the presumption as to the pleas of alibi of accused Rajender which he himself not taken. Further, merely because DW-7 Anand Kumar Tiwari had brought documents regarding posting of accused Rajender during his service period but the same will not hint that the accused Rajender was not present at the place of occurrence, particularly, on the date of incident i.e. 12.09.2010 and it only suggests that the accused Rajinder was posted at Assam from 30.03.2007 to 19.09.2010. 17.1 On the contra, counsel for the respondent has opposed the said arguments stating that since DW-7 has brought on record the fact that accused Rajender Sharma was on duty at Mohan Bari Assam on 12.09.2009 and he was posted to Hindon Ghaziabad w.e.f 20.09.2010. Moreover, the said witness was not cross-examined and no question was put or no suggestion was given by the prosecution that accused Rajendra was not on duty on 12.09.2009 at Mohan Bari Assam. In view of the said Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 39/59 facts and circumstances, learned Trial Court has rightly observed that accused Rajender was posted at Assam on the date of alleged incident i.e. 12.9.2009. 17.2 After having gone through the submissions advanced by counsels for both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that since DW-7 has specifically deposed that accused Rajender Singh was posted at Mohan Bari Assam on 12.09.2010. In view of the said deposition, it was the duty of the prosecution/complainant to ask some material question regarding as to whether he was on duty or not on that day. In view of the absence of that, it can be presumed that he was on duty at Mohan Bari, Assam on the alleged date of incident i.e. 12.9.2010.

17.3 The second arguments of the counsel for the appellant regarding 12.09.2010 is that learned Trial Court has discredited the testimony of the appellant and held that there is no MLC of the alleged beatings of 12.09.2010. Furthermore, no complaint was made by the complainant qua this incident. Complainant had rather given an intimation Ex.PW1/F to the Police on 12.09.2010 herself stating that she was voluntarily leaving the house as she does not get alongwith well mother in law. The said finding of learned Trial Court has been assailed by the counsel for the appellant on the ground that merely complainant is not having MLC cannot be barred to file a complaint regarding alleged incident. Moreover, till 12.09.2010, the appellant/victim did not give any detail and in-depth complaint as till that time she had not made her mind to take any legal action against her husband and Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 40/59 in-laws and had only given 'Itla Pesh Bandi' Ex.PW1/F with the hope to reunite. Moreover, the said document Ex.PW1/F suggests that there was an issue in the matrimonial life of the appellant/victim. 17.4 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that since there was no incident dated 12.09.2010 regarding beating of the appellant/complainant by the accused/respondent, therefore, there was no MLC or any complaint alleged in the police station rather she herself give a document Ex.PW1/F showing that she was voluntarily leaving the house as as she does not get alongwith well mother in law, therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly dealt the said aspect.

17.5 After having gone through the submissions advanced by counsels for both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that since complainant alleged that she was beaten by the accused persons on 12.09.2010 but there is no MLC rather she stated in Ex.PW1/F that she was voluntarily leaving her matrimonial house as she is not having good terms with mother-in-law. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that learned Trial Court has rightly dealt the said aspect qua alleged incident dated 12.09.2010.

L. Qua alleged telephonic demand of money by accused Phoolwati to father of the complainant.

18.It is submitted by counsel for the appellant/victim that victim had specifically mentioned regarding the demand of money in form of cash, in her complaint and during chief examination but the defense failed to discredit the Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 41/59 testimony of her. It is shocking as to why the Trial Court has not found the allegation of demand of money when the same is the substantial part of appellant/victim allegations. 18.1On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that since complainant has neither deposed about the alleged demand nor her previous complaints find mentions about the said allegations, therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly not believed the said allegations. 18.2After having gone through the submissions advanced by counsels for both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that PW-3 Jai Bhagwan had deposed about one telephonic call from mother-in-law of the complainant wherein she is alleged to have directly demanded Rs. 5,00,000/-, car and computer from him. Learned Trial Court while dealing the said allegation observed that no date or time for occasion the demand has been specified. It is further observed that even the previous complaints of the complainant does not find any mention of the said allegation. Moreover, complainant has not deposed anything about the alleged demand and the said allegation has been introduced first time by the said witness before the Court during his testimony. In view of the said facts and circumstances, learned Trial Court has rightly dealt the said allegations qua telephonic demand of money.

M. Qua alleged incident of 31.10.2010 at Hindon, Ghaziabad.

19.It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that it was specific allegation of the appellant that on 31.10.2010 appellant herself went to the Ghaziabad. The mother-in-

Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 42/59

law alleged to have pulled complainant by hair and hit her head on the door due to which she suffered injury. The Nanad Jyoti is alleged to have kicked her with leg and fists and complainant started bleeding from the ear. When the complainant started crying, she was thrown out of the house forcefully. She kept waiting till 05.00 PM for the Police but none arrived. Thereafter, she reported back for duty. On duty, she fell ill and was taken to hospital and MLC was got prepared. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that learned Trial Court had discredited the said testimony of the appellant on the ground that IO did not examine any colleague of the complainant who allegedly took her to Lok Nayak Hospital. It is further submitted that if the investigating officer has not investigated the matter properly, the burden will not shift upon the complainant, while calling the complaints false, frivolous, and concocted.

19.1 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that it was alleged by the appellant that she was beaten up by mother-in-law and nanad, as a result of which, appellant started bleeding from the ear and she also stated that PCR was called but none arrived, thereafter, she returned to her duty at Police Headquarters and thereafter she was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital by her colleague and one MLC was prepared. It is submitted by counsel for the respondent that perusal of the casualty card dated 31.10.2010, no head injury is mentioned therein. Only there is one minor abrasion on the head of the complainant. In the absence of same, learned Trial Court has rightly observed the Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 43/59 colleagues of the complainant should have been examined by the IO.

19.2 After having gone through the submissions advanced by counsels for both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that the main allegation of the complainant is that she was taken to the Lok Nayak Hospital by her colleagues for her treatment after the incident dated 31.10.2010. Perusal of the casualty card dated 31.10.2010 no ear injury or ear bleeding was reported to the doctor as is mentioned in the complaint dated 04.11.2010. In the absence of the same, learned Trial Court has rightly held that IO should have examined the colleagues of the appellant who allegedly took her to the Lok Nayak Hospital for treatment. 19.3 The second argument of the appellant is that the most immediate complaint given by the complainant/witnesses after the incident dated 31.10.2010 i.e. 02.11.2010 had specifically mentioned the abuses and giving beatings by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law to the appellant/victim. Merely, it was not elaborated or in brief as compared to the other complaints, should not raise any doubt about the other complaints and there is no requirement to have all the complaints to be the facsimile of other. 19.4 On the contra, counsel for the respondent opposed the said arguments and submitted that learned Trial Court has rightly dealt the said aspect.

19.5 After having gone through the submissions advanced by counsels for both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that there is a complaint dated 02.11.2010 and complaint dated 04.11.2010 both of which were written, Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 44/59 subsequent to the alleged occurrence of 31.10.2010. The most immediate complaint after 31.10.2010 is of 02.11.2010. Learned Trial Court observed that if the complainant was indeed beaten badly by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and she allegedly suffered head injury and bleeding from ear, she would have definitely mentioned the same in this complaint. The absence of the most material and recent allegation in the first complaint after the alleged incident is material in nature. There is no justification for not mentioning the allegation in this complaint. Learned Trial Court further observed that even in subsequent complaint dated 27.11.2010 Ex.PW1/E which was also sent to National commission of women, there is no such allegation. If the complainant was beaten badly by mother-in-law and sister-in-law and she allegedly suffered head injury, she had mentioned the entire allegation in her complaint. I am of the considered view that the absence of the most material and recent allegation in the first complaint after the alleged incident is material in nature.

19.6 The next argument of the counsel for the appellant regarding the incident dated 31.10.2010 is that merely not finding ear injury or ear bleeding in her MLC, will not raise doubt about the version of appellant/victim. It is on record that the MLC of the appellant/victim having tenderness +RHC, a 2 cm long scar on the left forehead, a tender neck and also having vomiting and abdominal pain at that time. If she had an injury on the forehead, it could have been possible that she felt blood on her ear and so she Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 45/59 might have guessed that she had an injury and bleeding from her.

19.7 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that the MLC dated 31.10.2010 shows that the incident of assault was alleged at 11:45 AM, whereas the MLC was got prepared at 10:04 PM. There is a delay of approximately 10 hours from the time of alleged incident. If the complainant was indeed injured and hurt after the alleged assault, what was the reason for her not to get medical treatment/MLC immediately either at Ghaziabad or after returning to Delhi. The complainant admittedly reported for duty at Police Headquarters after returning from Ghaziabad. This gives rise to presumption that complainant was fit to report for duty and did not suffer any injury as alleged.

19.8 After having gone through the submissions advanced by counsels for both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that there is a time gap of approximately 10 hours from the time of alleged incident and the time of preparation of the MLC. The delay in conduct of the MLC and the fact that the complainant reported for duty at Police Headquarters subsequent to her visit at Hindon, Ghaziabad creates doubt over the alleged incident.

N. List of Streedhan articles

20.It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that learned Trial Court while discrediting the testimony of the appellant/victim, learned Trial Court called the bills of jewellery as rough estimates and seeing the same to be doubtful, whereas the prosecution witness PW8, who Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 46/59 categorically stated that "all customers were issued rough estimate till we have received the TIN. Moreover, regarding the photographs of the jewellery, the appellant/victim had categorically stated in a reply to the notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., the same is with the accused persons. It is further submitted that no list of streedhan was prepared at the time of marriage and in reply to the notice of IO under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., she had prepared the list and given it to the IO and when the same was missed from the court record, she again prepared and produced the same on record. Moreover, the list is also supported by the documents and the same was never challenged or stated to be forged by the defense and it has never been the plea of accused persons that the items mentioned in the list were not given.

20.1 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that appellant has not produced any original documents for showing the purchase of jewellery articles which were allegedly given to the accused persons. Learned Trial Court has rightly held that since the list of streedhan articles were not signed by both the parties, therefore, same could not be relied upon. Further, there was also contradictions regarding articles mentioned in the first streedhan list and subsequent streedhan list filed by the complainant. This proves that the documents produced in the Court are forged and fabricated.

20.2 After having gone through the submissions advanced by counsels for both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that first and foremost argument of the counsel for the Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 47/59 appellant regarding list of streedhan articles is that learned Trial Court while subsiding the testimony and evidence of the appellant/victim, called the bills of jewellery as "rough estimates" and seeing the same to be doubtful, whereas the prosecution witness PW-8, who categorically stated that "all the customers were issued rough estimates till we have received the TIN. Learned Trial Court observed that prosecution has not produced any bill of purchase of the alleged streedhan articles. The two documents produced in support of purchase of jewellery are "rough estimates" and not the Bill. The first rough estimate which was allegedly prepared is dated 11.10.2008 and bears signatures of some person whereas the other "rough estimate" dated 21.04.2009 is unsigned. These two rough estimates do not support the factum of alleged purchase of jewellery by any particular individual. The said rough estimates cannot in any manner, be substituted for proper purchase Bill. 20.3 After perusal of the testimony of PW-8 Shri Umesh Verma, I find that he is the son of jewellery shopkeeper. The said witness admits in his cross-examination that he does not remember exactly who had come to the shop to get the jewellery. He also admits that the name of the customer is also not mentioned in both the rough estimates. In view of the said fact, the said rough estimates of jewellery cannot be relied upon. Further, it is also admitted fact that alleged streedhan list was not signed by both the parties as per mandate of law, therefore, same cannot be safely relied upon in view of law laid in the case titled Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Government of Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 48/59 NCT of Delhi) decided on 23.02.2007. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in Para No. 4 that "n ow-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and some other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:

2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED.-

(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.

(2) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.

(3) Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule(1) or Sub-rule(2)-

(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;

(b) shall be in writing;

(c) shall contain:

(i) a brief description of each present;

(ii) the approximate value of the present;

(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and

(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a description of such relationship.

(d) shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.

Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 49/59

Hon'ble Delhi High Court has further observed that Court should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn.

20.4 In the present case, the alleged streedhan list was not signed by both the parties as per mandate of law, therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly not relied upon the the said streedhan list.

20.5 In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that learned Trial Court has also rightly observed that prosecution has failed to prove its case for the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC against the accused Rajender and Phoolwati.

O. Qua offence under Section 406 IPC.

21.It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that learned Trial Court tried to extricate the accused Phoolwati from the offence under Section 406 IPC. Firstly, the streedhan is the exclusive property of woman and no other person has any right over the property. So whether it was demanded or given without any demand by either side to the woman, it is formed to be the property of the woman. Learned Trial Court observed that "there is no evidence on the file to show that these articles were given consequently to the demand of any accused person". It is further submitted that the aforesaid reasoning of learned Trial Court is itself misconceived, whether it was given against demand or with free will but given to the woman it constitute solely her property as streedhan and will take away and not return the same on her demand, will be punished under Section Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 50/59 406 IPC. It is further submitted that learned Trial Court has also observed that "there is no allegation of entrustment of any streedhan or jewellery to the accused Phoolwati" but surprisingly, learned Trial Court has overlooked the averments in the complaints and also in her testimony. 21.1 On the contra, counsel for the respondent has opposed the said arguments stating that since appellant has miserably failed to prove that any articles were entrusted to the accused persons, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons for the offence under Section 406 IPC.

21.2 Before dealing the submissions, it would be appropriate to refer Section 405 of the IPC.

405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust". 21.3 Bare perusal of the said provision it appears that in order to bring home the offence of criminal breach of trust, proof of entrustment is essential. In Rashmi Kumar Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC 397 Hon'ble Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 51/59 Supreme Court held that when the wife entrust her streedhan property with the dominion of that property to her husband or any other member of the family and he dishonestly misappropriates the same or converts it to his own use, he is guilty for criminal breach of trust. In view of law laid down in the aforesaid case, I find that a list of streedhan articles was filed by the appellant but same was not signed by both the parties, therefore, same was not relied upon by the learned Trial Court in view of law laid down in Smt. Neera Singh's case (Supra). It is further to be noted here that appellant has also relied upon rough estimates regarding purchasing of jewellery articles but same has also not been proved by the appellant, therefore, same has not been rightly relied upon by learned Trial Court. Further, the receipts furnished by the complainant during her testimony are articles given to the husband and in-laws at the time of marriage but there was no evidence on file to show that theses article were given consequent to the demand of any accused person, therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly not relied upon the said receipts. Since the existence & identity of the alleged streedhan articles have not been conclusively established by the appellant which is a necessary requirement of law. Therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted accused/ respondent Phoolwati for the offence under Section 406 IPC.

22.As far as registration of FIR is concerned, I find that learned Trial Court while acquitting both the accused persons has directed to SHO for the registration of FIR Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 52/59 against the complainant/appellant. Perusal of the record, I find that learned Trial Court has given the said directions on the basis of two grounds i.e. 1) forgery and fabrication of the streedhan list and 2) the testimony of PW-4 Jasbir.

23.Now, coming on the streedhan list. Learned Trial Court has given findings qua streedhan which reads as follows:

96 "The alleged streedhan list has not been signed by both the parties as per mandate of law. The copy of stridhan list which was filed alongwith the charge-sheet and was stated to be copy of the original list of stridhan prepared at the time of marriage is Mark A. It is dated 07.12.2008. On the top of the first page of the said list, it is mentioned OM GANESHAYA NAMAH, it solely bears the signature of the complainant herein. The presumption that the list was prepared subsequently after filing of complaint cannot be ruled out.

97 The Original Of Document Mark A was produced and proved as Ex.P1. Interestingly, this list ExP1 which is stated to be the original of Mark A (which bears words " Om Ganeshaya Namah "), mentions the words "

Om Namah Shivay" on the top of the first page. The handwriting and flow of words in both the documents are also different. This proves that the documents produced in the court are forged and fabricated.

Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 53/59

23.1 Counsel for the appellant has opposed the said reasoning of learned Trial Court stating that Trial Court has stated in Paragraph No. 96 of its judgment that the alleged streedhan list has not been signed by both the parties as per mandate of law which means thereby the Court has not relied upon the same. Further, learned Trial Court has also stated that copy of streedhan list filed alongwith the charge-sheet and was stated to be copy of the original list of the streedhan prepared at the time of marriage is Mark A. But interestingly, appellant/victim has never stated the same, neither in any of her complaints nor reply to the notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. or during her chief and cross-examination. So from where the trial Court came to know that streedhan list filed alongwith the charge-sheet which is marked A is the original list of streedhan prepared at the time of marriage. The observation of Trial Court is unfounded, unrealistic and contradictory to the version of appellant/victim.

23.2 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submits that observation of the learned Trial Court regarding FIR is correct.

23.3 After having gone through the submissions of counsels of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that the finding of learned Trial Court regarding registration of the FIR in respect of list of streedhan articles is contradictory. Learned Trial Court while dealing with the offence punishable under Section 498A and 406 IPC observed that the alleged streedhan list Mark-A has not been signed as per mandate of law. Accordingly, the Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 54/59 same was not relied upon. On the other hand, learned Trial Court compared the said streedhan list Mark - A from the other streedhan list filed subsequently by the appellant/ complainant during the trial of the case and observed that handwriting and flow of words in both the documents are also different and this proves that the documents produced in the Court are forged and fabricated. I am of the considered view that once learned Trial Court has not relied upon document Mark A (streedhan list) for want of signature of both the parties in view of law laid down in Neera Singh's case (Supra) then learned Trial Court cannot rely upon the same for comparison with another streedhan list filed by complainant during the trial of the case.

24.Now, coming on the second ground for registration of the FIR i.e. testimony of PW-4. It is the case of the appellant that amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was allegedly given in January 2010 to her husband by her father after taking loan from Sh. Jasbir Singh, PW-4.

24.1 Counsel for the appellant submits that learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the testimony of PW-4. It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that J. B. Security as a firm was in existence since 1994 and the same is evident from the document exhibited as DW9/A and earlier it was run by the brother of PW4 i.e. Jagbir. It is further submitted that learned Trial Court has picked up and choose the reasoning of testimony as per the convenience. PW-4 has stated nowhere in his examination- in-chief that he had given Rs. 3,00,000/- to the father of the complainant in the mid January, 2010 out of personal Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 55/59 cash of company's money but the same was stated during his cross-examination and not in chief. It is further submitted that if we see the entire evidence as one piece of evidence of the prosecution witness Jasbir as PW4, it suggests that he lent the loan to the father of the appellant/victim from his personal earning. And the same will not be discredited as testimony and more so when he testified the same after a period of about 8 to 9 years of giving the loan. It is further submitted that merely the net profit of the company J. B. Security was Rs. 32,457/- in the year 2009-2010, will not dent the testimony of PW-4 as the profit comes at the end of the year whereas the amount was given at the beginning of the year.

24.2 On the contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that learned Trial Court has rightly not believed the testimony of PW-4. Rather the evidence of PW-4 was false evidence, therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order of registration of FIR against the complainant and PW-4.

24.3 After having gone through the submissions of counsels of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that police has registered the FIR after directions of the learned Trial Court in respect of alleged forgery and charge-sheet has also been filed. In the said charge-sheet, PW-4 has been kept in Column No. 12 for want of evidence. Perusal of the testimony of PW-4, I find that he claims that he runs a security agency by the name of J. B. Security. He also deposed that he gave a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the year January 2010 from his personal cash Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 56/59 of company's money. He also filed the balance sheet of the company showing the balance amount of Rs. 32,457/-. He also claimed that he was having the money Rs. 3,00,000/- at the relevant time and gave the said amount to the father of the complainant. As I have already discussed that the said PW-4 could not prove beyond reasonable doubts that he lent the money of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the father of the appellant. It is settled proposition of law that in the criminal cases, guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go to the accused. If the prosecution does not prove the case beyond reasonable doubts then it cannot be said that witness has given false evidence.

25.Now coming on the procedure adopted by learned Trial Court regarding registration of FIR at the time of delivery of judgment. For dealing the said aspect, it would be appropriate to refer Section 344 of Cr.P.C.

Section 344. Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence. - (1) If, at the time of delivery of any judgment or final order disposing of any judicial proceeding, a Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class expresses an opinion to the effect that any witness appearing in such proceeding had knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding, it or he may, if satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the witness should be tried Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 57/59 summarily for giving or fabricating, as the case may be, false evidence, take cognizance of the offence and may, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence, try such offender summarily and sentence him to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

(2) In every such case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials.

(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the Court to make a complaint under section 340 for the offence, where it does not choose to proceed under this section.

(4) Where, after any action is initiated under sub- section (1), it is made to appear to the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class that an appeal or an application for revision has been preferred or filed against the judgment or order in which the opinion referred to in that sub- section has been expressed, it or he shall stay further proceedings of the trial until the disposal of the appeal or the application for revision, as the case may be, and thereupon the further proceedings of the trial shall abide by the results of the appeal or application for revision.

25.1 Bare perusal of the said provision, it is apparent that the said provision deals with the witness either gives false evidence or had fabricated false evidence. In such circumstances, a Court may summarily try such witness and sentence him. Further, if the Court is not satisfied to Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 58/59 try such witness summarily then Court is further empowered under Section 344(3) Cr.P.C. to make a complaint in writing and send it to Magistrate of the first Class having jurisdiction. No other provision in the Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to give directions for registration of FIR at the time of delivery of judgment specifically when Court knows who has given false evidence or fabricated documents. In the present case, learned Trial Court has observed that complainant and PW-4 Jasbir Singh have allegedly given false evidence or fabricated documents. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned Trial Court was not empowered to give directions for registration of FIR at the time of delivery of judgment. Rather learned Trial Court should have adopted the procedure laid down under Section 344 Cr.P.C. for the alleged act of the complainant and PW-4. Accordingly, the order of registration of FIR is not sustainable.

26.To sum up, in view of the above discussion, it is held that accused persons, namely, Phoolwati and Rajender have been rightly and lawfully acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. Appeal is without merit, accordingly, same is dismissed. The other order of learned Trial Court for registration of FIR is set aside.

27.Appeal file be consigned to record room.

28.TCR be sent back along with the copy of this judgment. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.02.2023 (R.L. Meena) ASJ-05 (South- West), Dwarka Courts, Delhi (hg).

Krishna Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 59/59

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Krishna vs Govt. Of N.C.T Of Delhi on 28 February, 2023