Penal Code, 1860: s.498-A – Cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demand – Prosecution proved that the deceased was harassed with a view to force her and her parents to meet unlawful demand for money and such a harassment was on account of failure by her and her parents to meet such a demand –Thus, charge under Explanation (b) of s.498-A was proved. Penal Code, 1860: ss.306, 498-A – Whether when the prosecution established cruelty under Explanation (b) of s.498-A and also established that the deceased committed suicide within seven years of the marriage, the accused could also be held guilty for the offence punishable under s.306 with the aid of s.113-A of the Evidence Act – Held: Merely because an accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under s.498-A and the death occurred within a period of seven years of the marriage, the accused cannot be automatically held guilty for the offence punishable under s.306 by employing the presumption under s.113-A of the Evidence Act – Unless the prosecution establishes that some act or illegal omission by the accused drove the deceased to commit the suicide, the conviction under s.306 would not be tenable – Though the prosecution is successful in proving the case under s.498-A, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that any act or omission of the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide – There was no evidence on record to show that immediately prior to the deceased committing suicide there was a cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused due to which the deceased had no other option than to commit the suicide – The evidence on record further showed that the time gap between the last visit of the deceased to her parents with regard to the illegal demand and the date of commission of suicide was about two months – As such, there was nothing to show a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the illegal demand made by the appellant – Further, the cases wherein the conviction under s.306 had been held tenable by this court, even though the charge was only under s.304B, it was found that the charge in those cases specifically stated that the deceased was driven to commit suicide on account of cruelty meted out to the deceased – However, in the instant case, the charge did not state that the deceased was driven to commit suicide on account of the harassment meted out to the deceased – It did not mention that the accused had abetted in commission of suicide by the deceased – Therefore, conviction under s.498-A is maintained and conviction under s.306 is set aside – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113-A.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The evidence of PW-10, father of the deceased corroborated to an extent by PW-13 showed that the prosecution was able to prove that the deceased was harassed with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property. On the basis of said evidence, the prosecution proved the charge under Explanation (b) of Section 498-A of the IPC. [Para 11] [240-E-F]
2. Merely because an accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and the death has occurred within a period of seven years of the marriage, the accused cannot be automatically held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC by employing the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Unless the prosecution establishes that some act or illegal omission by the accused has driven the deceased to commit the suicide, the conviction under Section 306 would not be tenable. [Para 27] [249-E-F]
3. The prosecution failed to prove that the cruelty was of such a nature which left no choice to the deceased than to commit suicide. There was no material on record to show that immdediately prior to the deceased committing suicide, there was a cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused due to which the deceased had no other option than to commit suicide. The evidence on record further showed that the time gap between the last visit of the deceased to her parents with regard to the illegal demand and the date of commission of suicide was about two months. As such, there was nothing on record to show that there was a proximate nexus between the commission of suicide and the illegal demand made by the appellant. [Paras 33-34] [251-B-D]
4. Another aspect is that the cases wherein this Court has held that the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC was tenable though charge was only under Section 304-B of the IPC, it was found the charge specifically stated that the deceased was driven to commit suicide on account of cruelty meted out to the deceased. However, in the present case, the charge does not state that the deceased was driven to commit suicide on account of the harassment meted out to the deceased. It also does not mention that the accused had abetted in commission of suicide by the deceased. Conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC is maintained and the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section
306 of the IPC. [Paras 35-37] [251-F; 252-B-C] State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC
73 ; Hans Raj v. State of Haryana (2004) 12 SCC
257 : [2004] 2 SCR 678 ; Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 595 : [2014] 4 SCR 988 - relied on.
K. Prema S. Rao and Anr. v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 217 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 339 ; Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 551 : [2013] 2 SCR 357 ; Thanu Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 353 : [2010] 12 SCR 710 ; Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka (2016) 12 SCC 759 : [2016] 3 SCR 145 - distinguished.
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247 ; Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48 : [2013]
10 SCR 306 ; Narwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 2 SCC 47 : [2011] 1 SCR 110 ; Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC
371 : [2002] 3 SCR 668 - referred to.
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.