Search Blog

Thursday, May 9

Supreme Court on interested witness in dowry death case


Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar vs  State of Karnataka, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 2038 of 2012], Decided on Jan 3, 2013
 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“Learned Sessions Judge has refused to rely upon the evidence of the parents, brother and brothers-in-law of Girija primarily on the ground that they are interested witnesses. We find this approach to be very unfortunate. When a woman is subjected to ill treatment within the four walls of her matrimonial house, ill-treatment is witnessed only by the perpetrators of the crime. They would certainly not depose about it. It is common knowledge that independent witnesses like servants or neighbours do not want to get involved. In fact, in this case, a maid employed in the house of the appellant who was examined by the prosecution turned hostile. It is true that chances of exaggeration by the interested witnesses cannot be ruled out. Witnesses are prone to exaggeration. It is for the trained judicial mind to find out the truth. If the exaggeration is of such nature as to make the witness wholly unreliable, the court would obviously not rely on him. If attendant circumstances and evidence on record clearly support and corroborate the witness, then merely because he is interested witness he cannot be disbelieved because of some exaggeration, if his evidence is otherwise reliable. In this case, we do not find any such exaggeration qua the appellant. The witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination very well. There are telltale circumstances which speak volumes”.


“Injuries suffered by Girija prior to the suicide cannot be ignored. The pathetic story of Girija’s woes disclosed by her parents, her brother and her brothers in-law deserves to be accepted and has rightly been accepted by the High Court”. [Para 9]


As regards to delay for six hours in lodging of FIR is concerned, the Court took the view that:


When a man looses his daughter due to cyanide poisoning, he is bound to break down. He would take time to recover from the shock. Six hours delay cannot make his case untrue. It is also not proper to expect him to give all minute details at that stage. The F.I.R. contains sufficient details. It is not expected to be a treatise. We feel that the comments on alleged delay in lodging the F.I.R. and its contents are totally unwarranted. For the same reasons, we also reject the submission of counsel for the appellant that because PW1-Suresh did not tell the police officers who were present at the scene of offence that the appellant was responsible for the suicide his FIR lodged after six hours is suspect.” [Para 10]


On the issue of rebut of presumption under section 113A of Evidence Act, the Court held:


Presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 springs into action which says that when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The question is whether the appellant has been able to rebut this presumption.” [Para 6]



In the ultimate analysis we are of the opinion that the appellant has not been able to rebut presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. Girija committed suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage in her matrimonial home. Impact of this circumstance was clearly missed by the trial court. The evidence on record establishes that Girija was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the appellant in their matrimonial home, which drove her to commit suicide. The appellant is guilty of abetment of suicide. The High Court has rightly reversed the judgment of the trial court acquitting the appellant.” [Para 15]


Follow the link to see full text: