More Coverage
Twitter Coverage
Satyaagrah
Written on
Satyaagrah
Written on
Satyaagrah
Written on
Satyaagrah
Written on
Satyaagrah
Written on
JOIN SATYAAGRAH SOCIAL MEDIA
"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst": Justice P Velmurugan, Madras HC observed that "Evidence of woman's relatives in matrimonial dispute can't be brushed aside terming them interested witnesses"

The Madras High Court recently observed that evidence adduced by victim-woman's relatives in matrimonial disputes cannot be brushed aside by terming them as interested witnesses [P Senthil v State].
|
Single-judge Justice P Velmurugan said that in matrimonial disputes, it is usually the family members who would know about incidents which happen within the four walls of the house.
Moreover, such family members would usually refrain from unnecessarily giving out information about family disputes especially between the husband and wife in the court, even if they know about the incidents, the Court said.
"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," the judgment stated.
In the present case, the Court observed that the relatives (witnesses) had clearly spoken about the cruelty caused by the husband against the woman (wife) and, therefore, their evidence could not be simply brushed aside contending that they are interested witnesses.
The Court, therefore, upheld the appellant-husband's conviction for cruelty awarded by the trial court.
|
The case arose after a complaint was filed by the victim-wife against her husband and his family for cruelty with other offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The trial judge after taking into consideration arguments advanced on either side, by a judgment dated December 16, 2019, acquitted all the accused and convicted the appellant-husband only for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.
The trial judge sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
The husband moved the High Court in an appeal against the said judgment of conviction.
The counsel for the appellant contended that the trial judge convicted him solely on the basis of evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses.
It was argued that the prosecution witnesses were interested parties and hearsay witnesses, whose testimony cannot be relied upon by the trial court for convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 498A.
It was also pointed out there was a delay of nearly 20 days in lodging the complaint since the day when the alleged cruelty was meted out to the complainant-wife.
The single-judge refused to entertain the contentions put forth by the appellant and noted that a delay of 20 days in lodging the complaint could not be a reason to acquit the appellant since it was natural for a newly married woman to take time to disclose about the cruelty to others.
A newly married woman would not rush to the police station to lodge complaints and her parents too would only attempt to settle the dispute at the first instance, the Court added.
The judge further noted that the wife had categorically stated about the incidents and her relatives had also corroborated the same therefore there was cogent evidence on the commission of offence under Section 498A.
"In the result, the criminal appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merit and substance. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant to undergo remaining period of sentence if any," the court observed.
Being an appellate Court, it is important to reappreciate the entire evidence independently and give the finding, Court said.
"Accordingly this Court, 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," court held
Appellant was represented by Advocate K Balakrishnan while prosecution was represented by advocate S Sugendran.
References:
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
Please share the article on other platforms
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at satyaagrahindia@gmail.com and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
Related Articles
- Hindu side filed reply in Supreme Court: 'Gyanvapi property belonged to Lord Adi Vishweshwar since time immemorial, even before the Islamic rule in India, and hence cannot be handed to anybody'
- Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC order to take over land from Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust: State Govt of UP allotted 400 acres to the Trust that violated the conditions and built a Mosque instead of a university
- Minimum age of women for marriage is raised to 21 years: Union Cabinet clears proposal
- Due to high public interest, the Law Commission has extended the Uniform Civil Code feedback deadline by two weeks, meanwhile, AIUDF leader Badruddin Ajmal misinterpreted the UCC, linking it to uniform attire and diet commenting 'sarees-for-all'
- "गजवा ए हिंद vision 2047": Delhi HC denies bail to ex-PFI chief E Abubacker, highlighting PFI's Vision 2047 to overthrow the government, replace the constitution with Sharia Law, and establish a Caliphate by 2047 through terror camps & radicalizing youth
- "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles": CJI DY Chandrachud lamented, "Hundreds of young people die in India due to honour killings merely because they love someone or marry outside their caste or against their family's wishes"
- "Faith in judiciary has eroded considerably, need to find out what went wrong": Justice Oka reveals a stark truth that faith in judiciary wrecked, highlighting lower courts' struggles & the CJI's recent admission of mediocrity, calling for urgent reforms
- "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made": CJI NV Ramana retires today, a look at his last sitting in SC, Ex-SCBA President Dushyant Dave said, "You have been citizens' judge, you stood up for them to uphold their rights and Constitution"
- “Just a reminder that I’m going on vacation and you’re not”: Plea before Bombay High Court challenges long court vacations; claims such vacations violate fundamental rights of citizens since litigants' right to seek justice is affected by such vacations
- SC's interim order restraining mosque surveys under the Places of Worship Act sends a troubling signal, empowering mob veto and prioritizing 'harmony' over constitutional rights and judicial independence, raising serious concerns for democracy
- "How many different kinds of ruin do you have to see, before you resign yourself to calling it all 'ruin'?": UP Court gives death penalty to Haleem and Rizwan in a minor's gang rape case, injuries caused made her physically and mentally handicapped
- "Every sinner has a future": In the labyrinth of justice, where Chandrakant Jha, with 18 murders, finds another chance at parole, it begs the question: Is redemption possible for everyone, or are some paths too dark to ever find the light again
- "Honest conviction is my courage; the Constitution is my guide": VP Jagdeep Dhankar took exception to Courts quashing changes made by parliament to the Constitution, says "Nowhere in the world Constitutional provisions are undone by courts like in India"
- "The weight of 59 lives demands attention": Supreme Court denies bail to three Godhra train case convicts, emphasizing its severity. The 2002 incident claimed 59 lives, including women and children, leading to widespread riots in Gujarat
- "Festivals are happy places, and you don't really want to enjoy them on your own": CJI, Supreme Court ~ "Why do we always want to portray that religious festivals are the time for riots; for example, there are no riots during Ganesh Puja in Maharashtra"