Page 1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 12  OF 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No. 2038 of 2012]

Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar … APPELLANT

Versus

State of Karnataka … RESPONDENT

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

Page 2

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  

2

Page 3

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  

3

Page 4

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  

4

Page 5

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  pronounced  her  

dead.  PW1-Suresh stated that Girija had committed suicide  

by consuming poison or some tablets because the appellant,  

A1 and A3 tortured her.  The complaint was lodged at 2215  

hours.   PW1-Suresh stated  that  because  he  had gone to  

inform about the death of Girija to his relatives there was  

some delay in lodging the complaint.    

4. In  support  of  its  case  the  prosecution  examined  24  

witnesses.  Prominent amongst them are PW1-Suresh and  

5

Page 6

PW18-Anuradha, the parents of the deceased, PW19- Jayant  

the  brother  of  the  deceased,  PW2-Manjunath  and  PW12-  

Sripad Anvekar who attended appellant’s marriage, PW11-

Digvijay,  PW16-Prasanna  Revankar  and  PW17-Dr.  Raj  

Kumar,  the  sons-in-law  of  PW1-Suresh  and  PW3-Shruti,  

friend of Girija.  The appellant denied the prosecution case  

and submitted a written explanation. We shall soon advert  

to it.  

5. Assailing  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  

Smt. Suri, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that  

the view taken by the trial court while acquitting the accused  

was a  reasonably  possible  view which  ought  not  to  have  

been interfered with by the High Court. Counsel submitted  

that  the  High  Court  erred  in  relying  on  the  evidence  of  

interested  witnesses.   Counsel  submitted  that  though,  

evidence shows that several police officers were there at the  

scene  of  offence,  PW1  did  not  lodge  the  complaint  

immediately.   He  lodged  the  complaint  at  2215  hours,  

6

Page 7

though he got to know about Girija’s death at 2.30 p.m. The  

complaint  is,  therefore,  doctored.  Counsel  submitted  that  

the High Court has held that demand of dowry is not proved.  

The  High  Court,  therefore,  could  not  have  proceeded  to  

convict the appellant under Sections 498A and 306 of the  

IPC  by  reversing  the  order  of  acquittal.   There  was  no  

credible evidence on the basis of which the appellant could  

be held guilty of the said offences. Counsel requested us to  

go through the explanation offered by the appellant in his  

statement  recorded  under  Section  313  of  the  Criminal  

Procedure  Code,  1973  (for  short  ‘the  Code’)  which  

according to her establishes his innocence.   Learned counsel  

for the State strenuously supported the impugned order.  

6. Two most vital  circumstances which must be kept in  

mind  while  dealing  with  this  case  are  that  Girija  had  

committed suicide in the matrimonial home and her death  

took place within seven years of her marriage.  Presumption  

under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 springs  

7

Page 8

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.  

7. Medical  evidence is of great importance in this  case.  

PW7-Dr. Sailaja had done Girija’s post-mortem. She found  

the following injuries on Girija:  

“1. On right side of head there was little swelling  and wound on the forehead.  

2. On the right eye lower eyelid and on the neck  there was weal’s of specific area and the eye was  bleeded.  

3. There was swelling on the right side of neck.  

8

Page 9

4. On the right hand thumb bottom there was  blue mark having an area 3’x2 ½’.  

5. To the inner side of the arm the blood was  clotted having an area of 2’ x 1’.  

6. To the inner side of the wrist the skin was  blackened having an area 1’ x ½’.  7. Below  the  thumb  the  blood  was  clotted  covering an area 2’ x 1’.”  

Dr. Sailaja opined that cyanide poisoning was the cause  

of  death.   She  stated  that  all  the  external  wounds  were  

caused prior to post-mortem. According to her, the wounds  

on the right side of head can be sustained if  a person is  

beaten with hands. According to her report, they could be  

caused by hard and blunt  object  when the deceased was  

alive.   In  the cross-examination,  it  was suggested  to her  

that if  the dead body falls on rough surface, the wounds,  

which  she  had  seen,  could  be  caused.  She  denied  the  

suggestion.   Thus, it is clear that Girija was beaten up prior  

to  the death.  In  the  facts  of  this  case,  it  is  difficult  and  

absurd to come to a conclusion that the injuries were self-

inflicted.  Pertinently,  Girija  died in her matrimonial  home.  

9

Page 10

We have no hesitation, therefore, in concluding that prior to  

taking  cyanide,  Girija  was  assaulted  in  her  matrimonial  

home. PW6- Laxman  Kudani, the then Tahsildar and Taluka  

Magistrate  Karwar  who drew the inquest  panchnama also  

referred to blackening of the skin at the wrist and on the left  

and right side of the cheeks of the dead body.  He denied  

the  suggestion  that  because  of  the  pressure  exerted  by  

PW1-Suresh, it was so stated in the inquest panchnama.  

8. It  would  be  appropriate  at  this  stage  to  go  to  the  

evidence of PW20-Dr. Anil Kolvekar.  This evidence takes us  

little  backwards.  Dr.  Kolvekar  stated  that  on  30/5/2002  

Girija had visited his nursing home for treatment with her  

brother.  He found following injuries on her body:   

“(1)  Contusion  on  right  inner  thigh  aspect  and 1/3rd  

circular – 3 cm in diameter;

(2)  Contusion  of  left  inner  thigh  aspect  and  1/3rd  

circular zoom diameter;  

(3) Contusion over back right side 6 cm injuries. “

10

Page 11

She told him that she sustained those injuries because her  

husband had beaten her.   Dr.  Kolvekar  stated that those  

injuries  were  caused  within  24  hours  and  they  could  be  

caused due to beating by sticks and pinching.  Dr. Kolvekar  

identified his signature on the injury certificate (Ex. P66).  

Strangely, learned Sessions Judge has given no importance  

to this evidence and has observed that from the evidence of  

this witness one can only conclude that on 30/5/2002 when  

Girija visited him, she had three injuries on her body which  

were caused 24 hours prior to the treatment and it is for the  

prosecution  to  prove  that  the  accused  had  caused  those  

injuries.   Learned Sessions  Judge has not  disbelieved Dr.  

Kolvekar.  Girija was brought to him by her brother. She told  

him that her husband had caused those injuries.  We fail to  

understand what more evidence the prosecution could have  

adduced to  prove that  those injuries  were caused by the  

appellant.  In the peculiar  circumstances of  the case,  only  

this conclusion can be drawn from Dr. Kolvekar’s evidence.  

It is pertinent to note that PW3-Shruti Vernekar, a friend of  

11

Page 12

Girija, has supported the case of PW20-Dr. Kolvekar that the  

deceased had visited him in May, 2002.  PW3-Shruti stated  

that she met Girija at Dr. Kolvekar’s nursing home in May,  

2002.  Girija appeared to be disturbed and she complained  

of body ache.  According to PW3-Shruti, she told her that  

the appellant and members of his family were beating her  

and that she was fed up.  Learned Sessions Judge discarded  

the evidence of this witness on the ground that there is a  

delay  in  recording  her  statement.  So  far  as  delay  is  

concerned,  we  cannot  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  

investigation  of  this  case  was  entrusted  to  PW24-A.K.  

Sidamma, Deputy Superintendent of Police in COD in Dowry  

Prohibition Cell on 21/06/2002.  Thereafter, she appears to  

have recorded certain vital statements.  In the peculiar facts  

of  this  case  delay  in  recording  statements  of  witnesses  

cannot be taken against the prosecution.  So far as PW3-

Shruti  is  concerned,  despite  the  delay  in  recording  her  

statement we find her to be a reliable witness.  The High  

Court has rightly relied upon her evidence.  

12

Page 13

9. 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  

13

Page 14

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.  A1 and A3 have been acquitted  

by the Sessions Court.  That acquittal has been confirmed by  

the High Court.   The State has not appealed against that  

order.   We do not want to therefore go into that aspect.  

But, we must record that we are not happy with the manner  

in which learned Sessions Judge has ignored vital evidence.

10. PW1-Suresh the father of Girija stated how Girija was  

harassed mentally and physically.  Learned Sessions Judge  

has recorded a finding that Girija did not receive eye injury  

14

Page 15

prior  to  marriage.   PW1-Suresh stated  that  the  appellant  

assaulted  Girija  on her  face and she received eye injury.  

This  evidence  inspires  confidence.   The  story  that  the  

appellant had taken her to Dr. Kumta appears to have been  

created to get over PW1-Suresh’s version.  In any event,  

taking  Girija  to  a  doctor  after  assaulting  her  does  not  

absolve  the  appellant  of  the  crime.   PW11-Digvijay  

Kudtarkar, brother-in-law of Girija resides in Bombay.  He  

stated that when Girija had come to his house along with the  

appellant she appeared to be frightened.  She was not able  

to talk properly.  When she came alone she told him that  

she was scared of living in the appellant’s house.  He noticed  

that her left cheek had become red and the right portion of  

her  face  had  become  dark.   PW17-Rajkumar  Diwakar,  

another  brother-in-law  of  Girija  spoke  about  the  ill-

treatment meted out to Girija, the eye injury received by her  

and the assault on her left cheek.  PW19-Jayant, brother of  

Girija also deposed as to how Girija was ill-treated. Despite  

all  this  learned  Sessions  Judge  acquitted  the  appellant.  

15

Page 16

Surprisingly, six hours delay in lodging the F.I.R. is taken  

against the prosecution.  Learned Sessions Judge also finds  

the  F.I.R.  cryptic.   Learned  Sessions  Judge’s  observation  

need to be quoted:

“… … …When the death of the deceased had   come  to  the  knowledge  of  P.W.1,  it  was   around  2.30  p.m.  and  that  house  of  the   accused in which deceased committed suicide   was hardly 2 K.Ms. away from the P.S.  I feel   that P.W.1, reaching the police station as late  at 22.15 hours., is a delay and this delay is   not  explained.   The  possibility  of   P.W.1Suresh  discussing  with  his  relatives   also to net in the in-laws as A-1 and 3 with   oblique  motive  cannot  be  ruled  out.   Therefore this delay of 5 to 6 hours which is   un-explained  is  a  fatal  to  the  case  of   prosecution. … … …”

We  are  amazed  at  this  observation.   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  

16

Page 17

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.   

11. We have carefully gone through the explanation offered  

by the appellant  in  his  statement  recorded under  Section  

313 of the Code as requested by his counsel.  It confirms  

our view that the appellant is not innocent.  After denying  

the  allegations  of  ill-treatment,  cruelty  and  demand  of  

dowry, the appellant goes on to paint a rosy picture of his  

married  life.   He  refers  to  certain  photographs  and  a  

Valentine day’s card sent by Girija to him in 2002.  Valentine  

day’s  card sent by Girija to the appellant does not help him  

to probablise his alleged good conduct.  In the facts of this  

case it appears to us to be an effort made by Girija to please  

17

Page 18

the appellant. The photographs were produced in the court  

to  show that  Girija  was taken to religious  places  and hill  

stations.  Trial court has rightly not placed reliance on them.  

As  regard  the  photographs  it  has  observed  that  in  the  

photographs Girija is seen standing alone and, therefore, on  

the basis of these photographs it  cannot be said that the  

appellant  had  taken  her  to  religious  places  or  for  

honeymoon.   Perhaps  to  create  an  impression  that  Girija  

was suffering from depression, the appellant comes out with  

a story that Girija used to consume pills everyday and when  

he  enquired  about  it  she  used  to  give  evasive  answers.  

According to him she used to lead a life of an introvert and  

she preferred loneliness.  She never watched T.V., she never  

read any newspapers or books.  When he asked her about it  

she stated that she had an eye problem.  He has further  

gone on to say that he blamed Girija’s parents that they had  

suppressed her eye trouble from him and got her married to  

him.  He further goes on to say that for this reason she was  

not willing to give birth to a child.  This story is palpably  

18

Page 19

false and is a crude attempt to create an impression that  

Girija was mentally unstable.  No such evidence is brought  

on record.  In this  connection, at the cost of  repetition,  it  

must be stated that the trial court has rejected the defence  

of  the  appellant  that  Girija  had  lost  her  eye  sight  even  

before her marriage and that this fact was concealed from  

him.   The  trial  court  has  observed  that  Girija  was  a  

graduate.  If she had really lost eye sight, the appellant and  

his parents would have noticed the defect earlier.  Further  

part  of  the  explanation  which  refers  to  the  appellant’s  

alleged conduct of getting Girija examined by Dr. Kumta, an  

eye specialist and allegedly giving her money for operation  

will have to be understood against the background of above  

facts.  We are not inclined to believe that the appellant took  

Girija to an eye specialist and if he did take Girija to an eye  

specialist we have no manner of doubt that it was too late in  

the day. The evidence on record clearly indicates that Girija  

received injury on her cheek and to her eye after marriage.  

She had no eye trouble before marriage.  The injury was  

19

Page 20

certainly not self-inflicted.  Circumstances on record clearly  

establish  that  Girija  received  the  eye  injury  in  the  

matrimonial home and the appellant was responsible for it.

12. We  are  wary  of  passing  comments  against  the  

subordinate  courts  because  such  comments  tend  to  

demoralize them. But, in this case, we will be failing in our  

duty if we ignore the insensitivity shown by learned Sessions  

Judge  to  a  serious  crime  committed  against  a  hapless  

woman.  We need to quote certain  extracts from learned  

Sessions Judge’s judgment which will show why we are so  

anguished.  

“The other allegations in Ex-P1 complaint is that   the deceased  was asked to get up at 5.00 a.m.  early in the morning and she was asked to attend  to house-hold work.  Even the accused had asked  the deceased to attend to house hold chorus, that   is  not  the  act  of  cruelty,  so  as  to  drive  the   deceased  to  commit  suicide…………………………………  …………………………Conduct  of  the  accused  in   reprimanding  the  deceased  for  her  lethargic   habits,  strongly  advising  her  to  be  more   compatible  with  members  of  the  family  and  to   evince interest in the domestic shores cannot be  considered as acts of cruelty.”

20

Page 21

It is pertinent to note that even in this case Girija was  

asked to wake-up at 5.00 a.m. and start work.  This kind of  

orders may not always be innocuous.   

13. Learned Sessions Judge further observes as under:

“In 1995, Cri. L.J. Page -2472, (Neelakanth Patil   vs.  State  of  Orissa),  it  is  held  that;  mere  statement that the deceased wife was not happy  with  the  husband-accused,  is  not  sufficient.   Particularly in the absence of any direct evidence,   oral  or  documentary  about  ill  treatment  one  or  two incident of assault by the accused-husband is   not  likely  to  drive  the  wife  to  commit  suicide.  Therefore,  the  Hon’ble  High  Court  held  the  conviction  of  the  husband  was  not  proper.”  (emphasis supplied)

Reproduction of Orissa High Court’s judgment does not  

appear  to  be  accurate.   Learned  Sessions  Judge  further  

observes as under:

“PW-11 has not stated the particular day of the  noticing  face  of  the  deceased  turning  brownish   and right eye upper portion blackening.  He has  not  stated  particular  day  on  which  he  found  deceased  to  be  panic.   He  has  not  stated  

21

Page 22

particular  day  on  which  he  found  the  deceased   physically  weak.   Therefore,  again  these  imputations are all general allegations.  As I said  earlier  even if upper eye portion or face of Girija   had changed their  colour  because of  A-2 giving   beatings, that alone as I said earlier is not the act   of cruelty driving the deceased to commit suicide.”  (emphasis supplied)

“As  I  said  earlier  A-1  and  3  are  the  ordinary   residents of Karwar.  In between the date of the   marriage  and  the  death  of  the  deceased  on  13.6.2002 she was very  much staying with  her   husband A-2 in Bombay.  Therefore, giving one or  two beating is not cruelty to drive the deceased to   commit suicide.” (emphasis supplied)

“The  learned  Public  Prosecutor  has  argued  that  blackening of skin on various parts of the body of  the deceased is proved.  Therefore, court has to  believe  those  injuries  to  hold  the  accused  responsible  for  the  sake  of  argument,  it  is  assumed that those injuries were inflicted by the  accused, they are not sufficient to bring death in  the  ordinary  course.  One  or  two  beats  are  not  sufficient  in  the  ordinary  course  of  woman  to  commit suicide.” (emphasis supplied)

14. The tenor of the judgment suggests that wife beating is  

a normal facet of married life.  Does  that  mean  giving  one  

or   two  slaps   to   a   wife  by  a  husband just  does  not  

22

Page 23

matter?   We do not think that that can be a right approach.  

It is one thing to say that every wear and tear of married life  

need not lead to suicide and it is another thing to put it so  

crudely and suggest that one or two assaults on a woman is  

an accepted social  norm.  Judges have to be sensitive to  

women’s problems. Perhaps learned Sessions Judge wanted  

to convey that the circumstances on record were not strong  

enough to drive Girija to commit suicide. But to make light  

of slaps given to Girija which resulted in loss of her eyesight  

is  to  show  extreme  insensitivity.   Assault  on  a  woman  

offends her  dignity.  What  effect  it  will  have on a woman  

depends  on  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  case.  There  

cannot be any generalization on this issue.  Our observation,  

however, must not be understood to mean that in all cases  

of assault suicide must follow.  Our objection is to the tenor  

of learned Sessions Judge’s observations. We do not suggest  

that where there is no evidence the court should go out of  

its way, ferret out evidence and convict the accused in such  

cases.  It is of course the duty of the court to see that an  

23

Page 24

innocent person is not convicted.  But it is equally the duty  

of the court to see that perpetrators of heinous crimes are  

brought  to  book.   The above quoted extracts  add to  the  

reasons  why  learned  Sessions  Judge’s  judgment  can  be  

characterized  as  perverse.   They  show  a  mindset  which  

needs  to  change.   There  is  a  phenomenal  rise  in  crime  

against  women  and  protection  granted  to  women  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.    

15. 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  

24

Page 25

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.  

Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

……………………………………………..J. (AFTAB ALAM)

……………………………………………..J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 3, 2013.

25