Delhi District Court
State vs . Krishan Gopal on 29 March, 2014
FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji
State Vs. Krishan Gopal
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TWINKLE WADHWA:
M.M.(SOUTH EAST DISTRICT), SAKET NEW DELHI
State Vs. Krishan Gopal
FIR NO. : 167/02
P.S. : Kalkaji
U.S. : 498A/406 IPC
JUDGMENT
a. Date of its institution : 10.03.2003
b. Name of the complainant : Ms. Usha Devi, D/o Sh. Dinesh
Chand Gupta R/o TA282, Gali
No.4, Tughalakabad, New Delhi.
c. Date of commission of
offence : 23.01.1998
d. Name of the accused : (1) Krishan Gopal S/o Sh.
Subhash Chandra
(2) Subhash Chandra S/o Late
Shankar Lal (since PO)
(3) Smt. Ram Beti W/o Sh.
Subhash Chandra (since PO)
All R/o H.No.
13T/319 Agrasen Puram,
Jamna Brij, Agra, UP.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 498A/406 IPC
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Page No. 1 of 14
FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji
State Vs. Krishan Gopal
g. Case reserved for orders : 24.03.2014
h. Final order : Convicted
i Date of such order : 29.03.2014
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. By way of this judgment I will dispose of the present State case filed against accused Krishan Gopal bearing No. 167/07 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC PS Kalkaji.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that charge sheet was filed against three accused i.e. Krishan Gopal (husband of the complainant), Ram Beti (motherinlaw of complainant) and Subhash Chandra (fatherinlaw of complainant). All the three accused were participating in the proceedings but accused Ram Beti and Subhash were declared Proclaimed Offender on 09.12.2013 and case proceeded them u/s 255 CrPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that complainant Usha Devi was married with accused Krishan Goptal on 23.01.1998 but she was Page No. 2 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal treated with cruelty and her stridhan articles were also not returned hence the present challan u/s 498A/406 IPC was filed.
4. In support of their case prosecution has examined three public witnesses i.e. complainant PW2 Usha Devi, PW3 Ms. Bhagwan Devi, who is mother of the complainant and PW4 Sh. Dinesh Chander Gupta who is father of complainant. Besides these witnesses, IO of the case and Duty Officer has also been examined.
5. PW2 complainant stated before the court that soon after her marriage, she was treated with cruelty. Her husband and fatherin law raised demand of Rs.25,000/ for scooter. Her father fulfilled their demand but instead of purchasing scooter, this money was utilized somewhere else. Thereafter demand of Rs.50,000/ and again a demand of Rs.1 lac was raised but could not be fulfilled due to the financial condition of his father. She was repeatedly given beatings in the matrimonial house for not bringing money as demanded. Further when she was seven months pregnant when she was dropped at her parents house and thereafter at the intervention of some good relatives she went back to matrimonial Page No. 3 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal house but again she was given beatings due to which her inner eardrum was damaged. She further deposed that her jewellery was not returned and still lying in the possession of her inlaws. Some of the articles as are mentioned in the seizure memo duly exhibited on record were recovered but they were in broken condition.
6. PW3 Ms. Bhagwan Devi who is mother of complainant deposed that due to the repeated demands, Rs.25,000/ was given to her husband by them. She further stated that demand of Rs.50,000/ was made thereafter. She further mentioned that her daughter used to call up telephonically that she was given beatings repeatedly and money was demanded. She further deposed that Rs.1 lac was demanded and was given to accused persons. All the expenses for the birth of her grand daughter were borne by them.
7. PW4 Sh. Dinesh Chander Gupta who is father of complainant also deposed that money for purchasing scooter was demanded. He gave Rs.50,000/ for the same. He also further stated that when again Rs.1 lac was demanded, he arranged it and gave it to the father of accused. During her pregnancy, their daughter was Page No. 4 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal dropped at their house. All the expenses were born by them. After compromise she went back to her matrimonial house but again came back as she was ill treated again.
8. PW5 is IO who proved the investigation of this case.
9. Accused Krishan Gopal was given chance for leading defence evidence but he chose not to lead defence evidence.
10. I have heard arguments from Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for the accused.
11. It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that no purchase receipts are filed to show that dowry articles were purchased by them and there are no specific details that when the list was prepared. Further, considering their financial status, it is difficult to presume that so many articles were given. Further complainant has remarried and is living happily and has no interest in the present case as she herself deposed in her testimony before the court.
12. I have heard the counsel in detail. As far as demand of Rs. 25,000/ is concerned for purchasing scooter and payment of Rs. 25,000/ is concerned, the same has been mentioned by the Page No. 5 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal complainant in the first complaint given to police. Complainant has stated before the court also that Rs.25,000/ were demanded and were given. Her mother also corroborated her testimony.
13. Though father of complainant PW4 Dinesh Chander Gupta stated that demand for money for scooter was made but he stated the amount as Rs.50,000/ and not Rs.25,000/. However, considering the fact that marriage took place in the year 1998 and witness deposed before the court inn 2014, and the fact that he was approximately 60 years of age on the date of evidence, such discrepancies are likely to appear. It is a normal discrepancy which does not go to the root of the matter as it is specifically stated that money was demanded for purchase of scooter.
14. It is held in the case titled as Bur Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 2008 994) R.C.R. (Criminal) 834: 2008 (96) R.A.J. 197 that : "As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan V. Smt. Kalki and Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1390), normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of Page No. 6 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted in Krishna Mochi and Ors. V. State of Bihar etc., 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 567 : (JT 2002 (2) SC 186)."
15. Further, complainant Usha repeatedly stated that she was given beatings for not bringing money from her parents, she has mentioned this in the first complaint to the police and in her deposition before the court also. There was no suggestion to her in the crossexamination that she was not given beatings. Her mother has also deposed before the court as PW3 that her daughter called Page No. 7 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal them telephonically and informed them about the demands of money and beatings. It is admissible as res gestae. PW3 has corroborated the statement of PW2. Hence it is also proved that beatings were given to her.
16. It is argument of Ld. defence counsel that complainant has not given specific dates on which she was beaten. However, when she was given beatings repeatedly on various occasions, it is impossible to presume that she will remember the dates on which beatings were given to her.
17. Incident took place in 199899 and she deposed in court in 201314. Human memory is apt to blur with the passage of time. Further they are not very literate. In Avtar Singh Vs. State of haryana 1997 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 682 it is held that: "though PW2 Harmit Lal had not quantified the amount but he had stated about demand of money, which he could not manage. The statements of PW2 and PW3 have to be appreciated in the circumstances of the case and even if they could not give the day, time and month Page No. 8 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal when the demand was made but their testimony cannot be discarded keeping in view the rural background of the witnesses and their illiteracy."
18. It was held in a case titled as State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kanda Gopaludu 2005 (4) Cri.C.C. 711: 2005 A.I.R. (SC) 3616 that : "Very discrepancy in the statement of witness cannot be treated as fatal to prosecution case. The discrepancy which is not fatal to the prosecution does not create any infirmity. The incident had taken place on 24.01.1992 and PW2 was examined on 22.01.1996 after almost four years. Human memories are apt to blur with the passage of time. After lapse of almost four years, it cannot be expected that a witness can depose with mathematical precision."
19. She has further stated that demand of Rs.50,000/ and Rs.1 lac was made. She has further stated in her testimony before the court as well in her first complaint to the police that demand of Rs. Page No. 9 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal 50,000/ and Rs.1 lac was made. Her mother PW3 also corroborated her case that demand of Rs.50,000/ was made. There is no specific suggestion to the complainant in cross examination that no demand of Rs.50,000/ was made hence it is also proved that Rs.50,000/ were also demanded.
20. PW3 mother of complainant namely Bhagwan Devi deposed that they had given Rs.1 lac in cash to accused Krishan Goptal and PW4 Dinesh Chander Gupta also stated that cash of Rs.1 lac was handed over to the father of accused Krishan Gopal. However, the same has not been mentioned by complainant in her testimony that Rs.1 lac cash was given. Neither it is mentioned by PW3 nor by PW4 in their statement under Section 161 CrPC before the police that they had given Rs.1 lac cash to the accused. Despite this, their testimony appears to inspire complete confidence as far as rest of the facts are concerned. Hence, the argument by defence counsel that the fact that they handed over Rs.1 lac to the accused persons is false and their testimony has to be discarded in toto cannot be accepted. Even if testimony of a witness inspires confidence in rest Page No. 10 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal of the aspects, it can be accepted. It is also held in case titled as Bur Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 2008 94) R.C.R. (Criminal) 834: 2008 96) R.A.J. 197 that : "Falsity of particular material witness of material particular would not ruit it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be discarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence".
21. It is argued by defence counsel that it is the deposition of complainant that she was repeatedly given beatings but there is no Page No. 11 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal MLC on record in order to show that she ever received any injury. However, it is to be noted that it is not necessary that every beating must result in some sort of a physical injury. Further, complainant has also mentioned that when they had given beatings, she was locked in a room and was not allowed to go out. If there would have been MLC of the beatings Section 323 IPC also would have been added along with other sections but since MLC was not there, hence the present case was registered u/s 498A only.
22. It is further the argument of defence counsel that mother and father of complainant are interested witness, their testimony cannot be accepted as truthful. In State of U.P. Vs. Atul Singh etc. AIR 2009 SC 2713, it was observed;
"Merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is an allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be ground to discard the evidence which is Page No. 12 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often that not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person."
23.In view of above, it is proved that accused Krishan Gopal had repeatedly given beatings to the complainant. Further accused Krishan Gopal had repeatedly demanded money of Rs.25,000/ and Rs.50,000/ and thereafter Rs.1 lac from the complainant and thereby causing mental cruelty to her. Hence offence u/s 498A IPC stands proved against accused Krishan Gopal.
24. As far as offence u/s 406 IPC is concerned, complainant has filed list of articles along with list of jewellery articles on record but prosecution case is completely silent that when these lists were prepared. It is no where mentioned that they were prepared at the time of marriage or when they got signed. Further, there are no purchase receipts on record to show that these articles were ever Page No. 13 of 14 FIR No. 167/02 P. S. Kalkaji State Vs. Krishan Gopal purchased by complainant or her parents. In such circumstances it cannot be presumed that these articles were entrusted to her in laws and no offence u/s 406 IPC is proved against accused Krishan Gopal.
25. In view of the above, accused Krishan Gopal is hereby convicted for the offence u/s 498A IPC and is acquitted for the offence u/s 406 IPC.
26. File be consigned to RecordRoom.
Announced and dictated in (Twinkle Wadhwa) the open Court on 29.03.2014 MM/Mahila Court/SED/Saket New Delhi.
Page No. 14 of 14