GUMANSINH @ LALO @ RAJU BHIKHABHAI CHAUHAN & ANR. versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 03-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
GUMANSINH @ LALO @
RAJU BHIKHABHAI CHAUHAN & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 940-941 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 03, 2021
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A and 306 – Married woman
committed suicide in her matrimonial home within 8 months of
marriage, purportedly, by consuming pesticide – Conviction of
appellants (husband and mother-in-law) by Courts below u/ss.498A
and 306 IPC – Challenge to – Held: Prosecution proved that
deceased was harassed with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful
demand of Rs.25,000/- and such harassment was on account of
her failure to bring said amount from her father (PW-1) who was
financially incapable to meet such demand – Charge u/s.498-A of
cruelty clearly established against the appellants – Defence failed
to adduce any evidence to rebut presumption as to abetment of
suicide u/s.113-A of the Evidence Act – Prosecution successful in
establishing the evidence that deceased was left with no choice than
to commit suicide – Conviction u/ss.498A and 306 IPC, affirmed
– Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A.
Crime Against Women – Domestic cruelty – Witness –
Evidentiary value of close relatives/interested witness – Held: Most
often, the offence of subjecting the married woman to cruelty is
committed within the boundaries of the house which in itself
diminishes the chances of availability of any independent witness
– Also, normally no independent or unconnected person would
prefer to become a witness for a number of reasons – Nothing
unnatural for a victim of domestic cruelty to share her trauma with
her parents, brothers and sisters and other such close relatives –
Law does not disqualify the relatives to be produced as a witness
though they may be interested witness – Penal Code, 1860 –
s.498A.
Evidence – Witness – Interested witness – Appreciation –
Held:  Evidence of an interested witness requires scrutiny with
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 24
24
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
25
utmost care and caution – If the evidence of any interested witness/
relative on a careful scrutiny by the Court is found to be consistent
and trust-worthy, free from infirmities or any embellishment that
inspires the confidence of the Court, there is no reason not to place
reliance on the same.
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.113A and 4 – s.4 defines the phrase
‘may presume’ used in s.113-A – Definition of the word ‘may
presume’ — Meaning and effect of.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Applicability – To attract
the applicability of s.113-A, three conditions are required to be
fulfilled :- (i) The woman has committed suicide, (ii) Such suicide
has been committed within a period of seven years from the date
of her marriage, and (iii) The charged-accused had subjected her
to cruelty – However, the existence and availability of above said
three circumstances are not to be invoked, like a formula, to enable
the presumption being drawn and the presumption is not an
irrebuttable one.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
1.
Whether prosecution has successfully
established the charge of cruelty as laid down in Explanation (b)
of Section 498-A IPC.
1.1. Most often the offence of subjecting the married
woman to cruelty is committed within the boundaries of the house
which in itself diminishes the chances of availability of any
independent witness and even if an independent witness is
available whether he or she would be willing to be a witness in
the case is also a big question because normally no independent
or unconnected person would prefer to become a witness for a
number of reasons. There is nothing unnatural for a victim of
domestic cruelty to share her trauma with her parents, brothers
and sisters and other such close relatives. The evidentiary value
of the close relatives/interested witness is not liable to be
rejected on the ground of being a relative of the deceased. Law
does not disqualify the relatives to be produced as a witness
though they may be interested witness. [Para 21] [34-G-H]
GUMANSINH @ LALO @ RAJU BHIKHABHAI CHAUHAN &
ANR. v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
1.2. However, when the Court has to appreciate the
evidence of any interested witness it has to be very cautious in
weighing their evidence or in other words, the evidence of an
interested witness requires a scrutiny with utmost care and
caution.  The Court is required to address itself whether there
are any infirmities in the evidence of such
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.