Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that unlike Section 113B of the Evidence Act, Section 113A does not automatically create a legal presumption when certain circumstances are proven. Instead, Section 113A allows the court to use its discretion to presume abetment in cases where a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment raising the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act against the appellant Praveen Kumar, convicting him under Section 306 of IPC for the suicide of his wife within two years of marriage.

Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. According to it, in case of suicide of a woman within seven years of marriage, 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.

"Section 113A of the Evidence Act permits the court to raise a presumption as to abetment of suicide, if the suicide was committed within seven years of the marriage and if it is proved that she was subjected to the “cruelty” as explained in Section 498A by her husband or the relative of the husband. However, for the purpose of raising the presumption by the court under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the basic facts as contemplated in the said provision, need to be proved by the prosecution," the bench said.

Undoubtedly, the court pointed out, the allegations of cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, the charge under Section 306 also has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence that the appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide as contemplated in Section 107 of IPC. 

In the case, the bench did not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the high court on March 16, 2011, convicting the appellant for the offences under Section 498-A r/w Section 306 of IPC. 

The appellant had married the deceased, Raksha Devi on October 10, 1992, and she had given birth to a male child from the loins of the appellant on December 18, 1993.

In between, she filed three cases, one FIR under Section 498A, 506 IPC on September 12, 1993, a second under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance, and another one under 107/151 CrPC.

On September 22, 1994, the woman withdrew all cases, saying she was living happily with her husband.

However, four days after on September 26, 1994, she consumed tablets of aluminum phosphide and died on the same day within hours of her hospitalisation.

The trial court convicted the appellant only under Section 498 A and sentenced him to two years imprisonment. On appeal by the state, the high court convicted him of offence under Section 306 IPC as well and sentenced him to five years jail term.

In his arguments, the appellant contended no presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act could be raised against him as out of three cases two were withdrawn by the victim. The complaint under Section 107/151 was dismissed.

He said that the settlement between the parties could not be treated as an admission of guilt, on the contrary after the settlement the deceased had come to her matrimonial home to stay with him. He further submitted that there were no allegations of cruelty made between the period June 1993 till the wife committed suicide. 

The state counsel, on the contrary, said that the death had happened within two years of the marriage and during this period, the deceased had filed three complaints against the appellant alleging harassment and cruelty and therefore the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act was rightly raised by the high court for convicting the appellant under Section 306 of IPC. According to him though the appellant had examined two defense witnesses, the testimony of both the witnesses did not inspire any confidence.

After appreciating the facts of the case, the bench noted that the trial court and the high court had concurrently held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 498- A IPC by holding that the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty.

The appellant, however, contended that as per the suicide note, the suicide was committed by the deceased on account of her intolerable pain and illness and not due to the cruelty by him.

"The said contention deserves to be considered for rejection only," the bench said.

Apart from the fact that the said suicidal note does not appear to have been duly exhibited for being admitted in evidence, the fact that the appellant had not even bothered to inform the parents of the deceased immediately after the incident smacked of his guilt, the bench said. 

The two defense witnesses claiming to be the neighbours of the appellant were examined to prove that the relationship between the appellant and his wife was cordial and not discordant, however, they also do not inspire any confidence, in view of the undisputed and proved facts that the deceased had filed three cases against the appellant during her lifetime in respect of harassment and cruelty subjected to her by the appellant, the bench said.

The court thus dismissed the appeal for being devoid of merits.

Case Title: Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Himachal Pradesh