On 26.09.2022, The High Court of Judicature of Madras comprising of Justice P.VELMURUGAN in the case of P. Senthil v. The State expounds that Evidence of Woman’s relative in Matrimonial dispute can’t be brushed aside terming them ‘interested witnesses’
Facts of the Case
The respondent police registered a case against the appellant and five others for the offence under Sections 495, 498A and 313 r/w 109 IPC. After investigation laid a charge sheet before the learned Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, Since the offence charged against the accused are triable only by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai,The trial Court, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, prosecution examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked seven documents as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the defence no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. The learned trial Judge, acquitted all the accused and convicted the one of the accused/appellant only for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 5 Aggrieved over the finding and the judgment of conviction, the first accused has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
Appellant Contentions
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits before the Court that:
- The appellant is husband of the defacto complainant. There are two incidents alleged to have taken place and the first incident is that the appellant alleged to have dashed the head of the defacto complainant against the wall and caused injuries, which is not proved by the prosecution by producing any medical certificate.
- The second incident is that the other accused, being the in-laws alleged to have committed cruelty against the defacto complainant and the appellant herein stood as a mute spectator.
- The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as far as the accused 2 to 6 are concerned for the offence under Section 498A IPC, but, relying on the same set of evidence convicted the appellant alone for the offence under Section 498-A,which is against law.
- The evidence of Investigating Officer itself shows that there was no fair investigation and the evidence of prosecution witnesses shows that there is material contradictions regarding the date of miscarriage.
The trial Court has miserably failed to note all the above and has wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 498A IPC, which warrants interference of this Court.
Additional Public Prosecutor Contentions
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends before the Court that
- After the marriage, the appellant and his family members demanded more money and two wheeler and since the parent of the defacto complainant could not meet the demands made by them, they caused cruelty against the defacto complainant.
- In the presence of the appellant, the other accused caused mental cruelty against the defacto complainant and the appellant kept quite as a mute spectator without even preventing them.
The defacto complainant has clearly narrated the cruelty caused by the appellant and the other accused and even though the trial Court has acquitted the other accused for want of sufficient evidence, has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 498A IPC, which does not call for any interference of this Court.
Court Observation
The Court noted that in the matrimonial disputes, only the family members can notice the incidents, which occurred in the home i.e. within the four wall and they can only come forward to give evidence and the third party, even if they also know, will not be ready to give evidence and they would think that it is a family dispute and the husband and wife will quarrel each other today and tomorrow would join together why should they poke their nose unnecessarily in the family dispute especially between the husband and wife. P.Ws.1 to 5 clearly spoken about the cruelty caused by the appellant against the defacto complainant. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 could not be simply brushed aside, since they are interested witnesses as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
The Court further observes that, this Court, being an appellate Court, has to necessarily reappreciate the entire evidence independently and give its finding. Being an appellate Court, while re-visiting the entire evidence found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and there is no sound reason or ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction made by the trial Court.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
