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: