Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the brother-in-law of a woman who died by self-immolation, holding that there was practically no evidence that he abetted her suicide and that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked without cogent evidence of cruelty or harassment.
Issues
- Whether there was evidence that the appellant, the deceased's brother-in-law, abetted her suicide so as to sustain his conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the courts below could rely on the statutory presumptions in Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act to sustain the conviction.
Provisions considered
- Section 113A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The Court contrasted the discretionary presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman ('may presume') with the mandatory presumption of dowry death; before Section 113A can be applied there must first be cogent evidence of cruelty and harassment. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Noted that the courts below laid much emphasis on this mandatory presumption of dowry death, although the trial court had acquitted all accused of the Section 304B IPC charge and convicted them of abetment of suicide. (¶¶ 6, 12, 13)
- Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860On reviewing the oral evidence, the Court found practically no evidence that the appellant abetted the suicide, and set aside his conviction. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14)
Held
- There was practically no evidence on which it could be said that the appellant, as brother-in-law of the deceased, abetted the commission of her suicide. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Section 113B of the Evidence Act obliges the court to presume dowry death ('shall presume'), whereas Section 113A only permits the court to presume abetment of suicide ('may presume'); this is the vital difference between the two provisions. (¶ 13)
- The condition precedent for applying Section 113A is some cogent evidence of cruelty and harassment; without cogent evidence of harassment or abetment in any form, such as aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightaway invoke Section 113A and presume that the accused abetted the suicide. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeal allowed; the appellant's conviction by the trial court, as confirmed by the High Court, set aside; his bail bonds discharged.