SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 4

Supreme Court of India
AFTAB ALAM & RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.
Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 2038 of 2012]
Decided On : 03-01-2013

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The F.I.R. is not expected to be a treatise.
2. 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.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code ,1860-Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with Section 34 and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961-Death of deceased by suicide in matrimonial home with in seven years of marriage-Prosecution of appellant husband of deceased along with his parents -Acquittal by Trial Court-State Appeal-High Court while confirming acquittal of A1 and A3,reversed the acquittal of appellant and convicted him-Appeal-Medical evidence on record that deceased was beaten up prior to the death- Pertinently, deceased died in her matrimonial home- Sufficient reason to conclude that prior to taking cyanide, deceased was assaulted in her matrimonial home-Appellant failed to rebut presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act- Deceased 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 established that deceased was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by appellant in their matrimonial home which drove her to commit suicide- The appellant was guilty of abetment of suicide- High Court rightly reversed the judgment of the trial court acquitting the appellant-Appeal dismissed (Paras 11 to 15)

        Evidence of interested witnesses-Admissibility-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 (Para 9)

        Criminal Trial-Delay in lodging FIR- 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 could not make his case untrue- It was also not proper to expect him to give all minute details at that stage- The F.I.R. contained sufficient details- It is not expected to be a treatise (Para 10)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant along with his parents was prosecuted herein in the instant case on his wife committing suicide in matrimonial home with in seven years of marriage.Trial Court acquitted accused persons. On State Appeal, High Court while confirming acquittal of A1 and A3,reversed the acquittal of appellant and convicted him.

        B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Medical evidence on record showed that that deceased was beaten up prior to the death. Appellant failed to rebut presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. Deceased 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 established that deceased was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by appellant in their matrimonial home which drove her to commit suicide. The appellant was guilty of abetment of suicide. High Court rightly reversed the judgment of the trial court acquitting the appellant. Appeal was dismissed

       Result : Appeal dismissed

       

Judgment :-

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant (original accused 2 – A2) was tried along with his father Venkatray Narayan Anvekar (original accused 1 – A1) and his mother Smt. Vidyabai Venkatray Anvekar (original accused 3 – A3) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II at Karwar in Sessions Case No.59/02. By his judgment dated 30/03/2007 learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused. The State of Karnataka carried an appeal to the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad from the said judgment. The High Court by the impugned judgment confirmed the acquittal of A1 and A3. The High Court, however, reversed the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC. For offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one year. For offence punishable under Section 498-A the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Fine amount was directed to be paid to the parents of deceased Girija. The appellant was acquitted of the other charges. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. Admittedly, PW1-Suresh father of Girija stays at Nandangad Karwar. The appellant’s family stays at Habbuwada Karwar. Girija was married to the appellant on 17/12/2001 at Karwar. The gist of the prosecution case can be gathered from the F.I.R. lodged by PW1-Suresh. It is stated in the F.I.R. that one month after the marriage the appellant went to Mumbai where he has a jewellery shop along with Girija. About two months prior to the date of the F.I.R. Girija had developed eye problem. Instead of taking her to a doctor the appellant took her to one Swamiji. When the eye ailment could not be cured, she was brought to Karwar for check-up. When she came to Karwar she told PW1-Suresh that the appellant, her sister-in-law and A1 used to torture her and her sister-in-law used to assault her. They used to wake her up at 5 a.m. and pressurize her to work. At the instigation of her sister-in-law and A1, the appellant used to assault her. They used to ask her to get money from her parents. On 11/06/2002, PW1- Suresh, his son, Girija and the appellant went to Hubli and got Girija’s eyes checked from eye specialist Dr. Anant Revankar. On 12/06/2002, Girija informed them that she was being tortured. She stated that when she requested the appellant to take her for honeymoon, he refused and told her that if she continues with the demand, she will have to go to her parent’s house. She stated that the appellant tortures her mentally and when she visits Karwar the torture increases. On 12/06/2002, at 4.00 p.m., PW1-Suresh, his son and wife took Girija to the appellant’s house at Hubbuwada and informed them that they would take her back next day evening. On 13/06/2002, at 12 noon, he called-up Girija and told her that he would visit her matrimonial home and speak to A1 about the harassment and torture meted out to her. Girija told him that if he visits her house, her in-laws would torture her more and, therefore, he should not come. On 13/06/2002, at 2.30 p.m, the appellant phoned and told him that Girija was not speaking anything. He went to the appellant’s house along with his wife and sons. His son Sandeep saw Girija in the bedroom situated on the upper floor. She was not able to speak. Sandeep lifted her and brought her downstairs in order to show her to the doctor. The moment the doctor checked her, he pro



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top