Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the husband's conviction under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC for his wife's suicide within two years of marriage, holding that the prosecution had proved cruelty, including through three cases she had filed against him in her lifetime, so the High Court rightly raised the discretionary presumption of abetment under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal under Section 306 IPC by raising the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the basic facts for the Section 113A presumption, suicide within seven years of marriage and cruelty by the husband, were proved despite the wife's withdrawal of earlier proceedings and her return to the matrimonial home.
- Whether the alleged suicide note attributing the suicide to illness and the defence witnesses displaced the finding of cruelty.
Provisions considered
- Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court broke the Explanation's definition of cruelty into three limbs and treated the prosecution case as one of wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide; cruelty must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the concurrent finding of cruelty was upheld. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 11)
- Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860Abetment of suicide must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by cogent evidence of abetment as contemplated in Section 107 IPC; the conviction was sustained on the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. (¶¶ 7, 8, 11)
- Section 113A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Read as conferring a discretion on the Court, unlike Section 113B, to presume abetment once the prosecution proves the basic facts of suicide within seven years of marriage and cruelty in the Section 498-A sense; those facts were proved here. (¶¶ 7, 8, 11)
- Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860Referred to as the meaning of abetment the prosecution must establish for the charge under Section 306. (¶ 8)
Held
- Cruelty under Section 498-A and abetment under Section 306 IPC must each be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Section 113A of the Evidence Act lets the Court presume abetment of a married woman's suicide by her husband or his relative, but only after the prosecution proves the basic facts the provision contemplates. (¶ 8)
- Unlike Section 113B, Section 113A raises no presumption by operation of law merely on proof of the listed circumstances; it gives the Court a discretion to presume, a proposition the Court accepted from Hans Raj v. State of Haryana and Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana. (¶ 11)
- The marriage, the birth of a child, the wife's filing of three proceedings against the husband during her lifetime (an FIR under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, a complaint under Sections 107/151 CrPC and a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC) and her suicide by consuming aluminium phosphide tablets were undisputed or proved, and both courts had concurrently found cruelty under Section 498-A. (¶ 9)
- The plea that the suicide note attributed the death to illness was rejected: the note did not appear to have been duly exhibited, the husband's failure to inform the wife's parents immediately after the incident indicated guilt, and the defence witnesses describing a cordial relationship did not inspire confidence given the three cases she had filed. (¶ 10)
- As the prosecution proved suicide within seven years of marriage and cruelty by the husband, the High Court rightly raised the Section 113A presumption and there was no illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 498-A read with Section 306 IPC. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC imposed by the High Court affirmed.