LexVAJRESH VENKATRAY ANVEKAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 1 S.C.R. 80 VAJRESH VENKATRAY ANVEKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2013) JANUARY 3, 2013 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A & 306 - Married woman committed suicide by consuming poison within seven years C of marriage - Acquittal of accused-husband by trial court - Reversal of acquittal by High Court - Justification - Held: Justified -Medical evidence and the evidence of PWs revealed that the victim was beaten up prior to the death and she received eye injury and injury on her cheek - The injuries o were certainly not self-inflicted - Victim 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 - Evidence on record established that the victim was subjected to mental and physical cruelty E by the appellant in their matrimonial home which drove her to commit suicide - Explanation offered by appellant in his statement uls. 313 CrPC confirms that appellant is not innocent - Circumstances on record clearly establish that the victim received the eye injury in the matrimonial home and F the appellant was responsible for it - Appellant unable to rebut presumption u/s. 113A of the Evidence Act - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.113A. Witness - Interested witnesses - Evidence of - Suicide by married woman - Dowry death case - Trial court refused I G to rely upon the evidence of the parents, brother and brothers- in-law of the victim primarily on the ground that they were interested witnesses - Held: The approach of the trial court was very unfortunate - When a woman is subjected to ii/- treatment within the four walls of her matrimonial house, ill- H 80 VAJRESH VEN~TRAY ANVEKAR v. STATE ()F 81 KARNATAKA treatment is witnessed only by the perpetrators of the crime - A They would certainly ·not depose about it - It is common knowledge that independent witnesses like servants or neighbours do not want to get involved - On facts, a maid employed in the matrimonial house of th'e victim who was examined by the prosecution turned hostile - It is true that B chances of exaggeration by the interested witnesses cannot be ruled out and witnesses are prone to exaggeration - However, if the exaggeration is of such nature as to make the witness wholly unreliable, the court would not rely on him - If attendant circumstances and evidence on record clearly c 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, no such exaggeration was found qua the accused- husband (appellant) - The witnesses stood the test of cross- 0 examination very well - Injuries suffered by the victim prior to the suicide could not be ignored - The pathetic story of the victim's woes disclosed by her parents, her brother and her brothers-in-law deserved to be accepted and was rightly accepted by the High Court. FIR - Delay - Suicide committed by married woman by consuming poison - FIR lodged by victim's father after six hours - Effect - Held: When a man looses his daughter due E to cyanide poisoning, he is bound to break down - He would take time to recover from the shock - Six hours delay cannot F make his case untrue. Crime against Women - Phenomena/ rise in crime - Observation made by Supreme Court that Judges have to be sensitive to women's problems - Protection granted to women G by the Constitution of India and other laws can be meaningful only if those who are entrusted with the job of doing justice are sensitized towards women's problems. The prosecution case was thatthe daughter of PW1 committed suicide in her matrimonial home by H 82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A consuming poison because the victim's husband (A2), father-in-law (A1) and mother-in-law (A3) tortured her. The death took place within seven years of marriage. The said three accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with Section 34 IPC B and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial court acquitted all the accused. In appeal, High Court confirmed the acquittal of A1 and A3, but reversed the acquittal of A2 and convicted him under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Aggrieved, A2 filed the c present appeal. The appellant inter alia raised the followin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.