[Order doubtful] [Dowry death] Section 113B Evidence Act Requires Proof of Incessant Harassment: SC

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan pointed out that under Section 113B, the court may presume, unlike Section 113A where the statute says that court shall presume.

"This is a vital difference between the two provisions which raises presumption as regards abetment of suicide. When the Courts below want to apply Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards incessant harassment," the bench said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by Ram Pyarey against Allahabad High Court's judgment of August 6, 2013 which dismissed his appeal and three other co-accused and affirmed the trial court's judgment holding them guilty of offence under Section 306 of the abetment of suicide and under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The appellant herein was the brother-in-law of the deceased, who was married to his younger brother, Ram Sajeevan.

According to the prosecution, there was.harassment at the end of the husband, in-laws and the appellant (Jeth) herein to the deceased. The deceased doused herself with kerosene and set herself on fire on September 27, 1990. She died on account of severe burn injuries. The father of the deceased lodged a First Information Report with the Ajgain Police Station, District Unnao on the very same day.

A charge sheet was filed against four accused persons which included the appellant herein. The offence being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was committed under the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Charges were framed against four accused persons including the appellant herein.

The original charge framed by the trial court was one for dowry death punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC. The trial court acquitted all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, however convicted them for the offence of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 and 498 of the IPC and also for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The father-in-law and and mother-in-law of the deceased passed away while the appeal before the High Court was pending. So far as, the husband was concerned he has already undergone the sentence as imposed by the trial court. In fact, he did not file any appeal against his conviction.

Having looked into the oral evidence on record and the nature of the allegations levelled against the appellant herein, the bench said, "We are of the view that there is practically no evidence on the basis of which it could be said that the appellant herein as brother-in-law abetted the commission of suicide. We need not say anything further in the matter."

The court also pointed out the law as regards the abetment of suicide punishable under Sections 306 of the IPC was now well settled.

"It appears that the courts below laid much emphasis on Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872. Section 113A of the Evidence Act talks about presumption," the bench said, adding Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards incessant harassment.

The court set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court as confirmed by the High Court.