Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A and 306 – Married woman committed suicide in her matrimonial home within 8 months of marriage, purportedly, by consuming pesticide – Conviction of appellants (husband and mother-in-law) by Courts below u/ss.498A and 306 IPC – Challenge to – Held: Prosecution proved that deceased was harassed with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of Rs.25,000/- and such harassment was on account of her failure to bring said amount from her father (PW-1) who was financially incapable to meet such demand – Charge u/s.498-A of cruelty clearly established against the appellants – Defence failed to adduce any evidence to rebut presumption as to abetment of suicide u/s.113-A of the Evidence Act – Prosecution successful in establishing the evidence that deceased was left with no choice than to commit suicide – Conviction u/ss.498A and 306 IPC, affirmed – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A.
Crime Against Women – Domestic cruelty – Witness – Evidentiary value of close relatives/interested witness – Held: Most often, the offence of subjecting the married woman to cruelty is committed within the boundaries of the house which in itself diminishes the chances of availability of any independent witness – Also, normally no independent or unconnected person would prefer to become a witness for a number of reasons – Nothing unnatural for a victim of domestic cruelty to share her trauma with her parents, brothers and sisters and other such close relatives – Law does not disqualify the relatives to be produced as a witness though they may be interested witness – Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A.
Evidence – Witness – Interested witness – Appreciation – Held: Evidence of an interested witness requires scrutiny with utmost care and caution – If the evidence of any interested witness/relative on a careful scrutiny by the Court is found to be consistent and trust-worthy, free from infirmities or any embellishment that inspires the confidence of the Court, there is no reason not to place reliance on the same.
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.113A and 4 – s.4 defines the phrase ‘may presume’ used in s.113-A – Definition of the word ‘may presume’ — Meaning and effect of.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Applicability – To attract the applicability of s.113-A, three conditions are required to be fulfilled :- (i) The woman has committed suicide, (ii) Such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, and (iii) The charged-accused had subjected her to cruelty – However, the existence and availability of above said three circumstances are not to be invoked, like a formula, to enable the presumption being drawn and the presumption is not an irrebuttable one.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Whether prosecution has successfully established the charge of cruelty as laid down in Explanation (b) of Section 498-A IPC.
1.1. Most often the offence of subjecting the married woman to cruelty is committed within the boundaries of the house which in itself diminishes the chances of availability of any independent witness and even if an independent witness is available whether he or she would be willing to be a witness in the case is also a big question because normally no independent or unconnected person would prefer to become a witness for a number of reasons. There is nothing unnatural for a victim of domestic cruelty to share her trauma with her parents, brothers and sisters and other such close relatives. The evidentiary value of the close relatives/interested witness is not liable to be rejected on the ground of being a relative of the deceased. Law does not disqualify the relatives to be produced as a witness though they may be interested witness. [Para 21] [34-G-H]
1.2. However, when the Court has to appreciate the evidence of any interested witness it has to be very cautious in weighing their evidence or in other words, the evidence of an interested witness requires a scrutiny with utmost care and caution. The Court is required to address itself whether there are any infirmities in the evidence of such a witness; whether the evidence is reliable, trust-worthy and inspires the confidence of the Court. Another important aspect to be considered while analyzing the evidence of interested witness is whether the genesis of the crime unfolded by such evidence is probable or not. If the evidence of any interested witness/relative on a careful scrutiny by the Court is found to be consistent and trustworthy, free from infirmities or any embellishment that inspires the confidence of the Court, there is no reason not to place reliance on the same. [Para 22][35-B-D]
1.3. In the case at hands, PW-1,2,3 and 4, though they are related to the deceased, are natural witnesses. There being no bar in examining the family members or any other person as witnesses, their evidence is not liable to be discarded on this ground. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is found consistent without any material contradiction and inspires confidence. The Courts below have also properly scrutinized their evidence prior to taking them into account and there is nothing unusual in believing their testimonies. [Para 24][37-FG]
1.4. From the evidence of the prosecution witness, it is clear that prosecution has proved that the deceased was harassed with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of Rs.25,000/- and such a harassment was on account of failure by her to bring the said amount from her father (PW-1) who was financially incapable to meet such demand. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has been successful in proving the charge of cruelty under Explanation (b) of Section 498-A IPC. [Para 25][37-G-H; 38-A]
2. Whether the accused can also be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC (which provides punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide) with the aid of Section 113 A of the Evidence Act. [Para 27][39-A]
2.1. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, provides for presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage, by her husband or any of his relative. Explanation added to Section 113-A of the Evidence Act clearly provides that ‘cruelty’ shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the IPC. [Paras 13, 14][31-F; 32-B]
2.2. To attract the applicability of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, three conditions are required to be fulfilled :- (i) The woman has committed suicide, (ii) Such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, and (iii) The charged-accused had subjected her to cruelty. From the facts of the case at hands, all the three conditions stand fulfilled. However, the existence and availability of the above said three circumstances are not to be invoked, like a formula, to enable the presumption being drawn and the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. [Paras 32, 33, 34][41C-F]
2.3. Admittedly, in the case at hands, the evidence clearly establishes the offence of cruelty or harassment caused to the deceased and thus the foundation for the presumption exists. Admittedly the appellants have led no evidence to rebut the presumption. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely concluded that the Courts below committed no illegality in holding that the accused-appellants abetted the suicide of the deceased. The matter can be viewed from another angle. The prosecution was successful in establishing the charge under Section 498-A of cruelty against the appellants from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticides. The deceased was in the custody of the appellant and died within the four walls of her matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances. [Paras
37 and 38][42-B-D]
2.4. Not only a specific charge was framed against the accused-appellants, on one hand, the defence failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and on the other hand the prosecution was successful in establishing the evidence that the deceased was left with no choice than to commit suicide. No fault can be found with the Trial Court and the Appellate Court placing reliance on the evidence in drawing the presumption under Section 113-A particularly, when there was no material brought on record by the defence to disprove the facts. [Paras 44, 45][45-G; 48-A-B]
3. Both the Trial Court as well as the High Court have threadbare considered the evidence and have recorded cogent reasons to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 46][48-B-C]
Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 14 SCC 264 – distinguished.
Maranadu and Anr. v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2008) 16 SCC 529 : [2008] 13 SCR
487 ; Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001)
9 SCC 618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247 ; Ramesh Vithal Patil v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2014) 11 SCC
516 ; Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka (2016) 12 SCC 759 : [2016] 3 SCR 145 ; and K. Prema S. Rao & Anr. v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC
217 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 339 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.