Chowdamma (D) By LR and Anr. vs. Venkaappa (D) by LR’s. & Anr. (SC)

Law of Evidence–Where the principle controversy turns on matters lying within the exclusive personal knowledge the silence of defendant no. 1 and her absence in witness box is not a mere procedural lapse but a calculated withdrawal from scrutiny–The only justification advanced was that she being an octogenarian and suffering from arthritis was unable to attend the court proceedings–However, record of case reveals that she was present in the Court when the evidence of DW 1, DW 2, DW 3 & DW 4 was recorded and when the evidnce of PW 1 was recorded–Inference that this is not a case of medical inability but a deliberate silence–She was central to the controversy –Further, neither the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1 were invoked for recording her evidence nor any explanation was rendered in this regard–it reflects a conscious evasions from the evidentiary process–It constitued wilful shielding from judicial scrutiny.