Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. The learned APP for the State has argued that the deceased was found to have committed suicide within two years of marriage and, therefore, there is presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. In counter to the submissions advanced, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that in order to attract presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, prosecution has to first establish that deceased was subjected to cruelty. He submits that the 543.01crapl presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not automatically attracted in an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. In support of the submissions advanced, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in case of Raja Babu (supra).

19. In my view, only for the reason that the deceased found to have committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not attracted. As discussed, the trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was treated with cruelty by the accused. The accused have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC. The trial Court has observed that testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4 - the witnesses examined to prove the case of prosecution, found not worthy to be relied upon to sustain conviction. In absence of any evidence that the deceased was subjected by her husband or in-laws to cruelty, presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be attracted in the case in hand.

21. In the case of Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana 3, the Apex Court has dealt with the purport of section 113-A of the Evidence Act and in para 16, the Court has observed, as under:

"26. We are of the view that the mere fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the presumption as defined under Section 498-A IPC, may attract, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The term "the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband" would indicate that the presumption is discretionary. So far as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated that the prosecution has not succeeded in showing that there was a dowry demand, nor the reasoning adopted by the Courts below would be sufficient enough to draw a presumption so as to fall under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. In this connection, we may refer to the judgment of this Court in Hans Raj v. State of Haryana (2004) 12 SCC 257, wherein this Court has examined the scope of Section 113A of the Evidence Act and Sections 306, 107, 498-A etc. and held that, unlike Section 113B of the Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on the proof of circumstances enumerated in Section 113A of the Evidence Act. This Court held that, under 3 AIR 2014 SC 1782;

543.01crapl Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to first establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband has subject her to cruelty. Even though those facts are established, the Court is not bound to presume that suicide has been abetted by her husband. Section 113A, therefore, gives discretion to the Court to raise such a presumption having regard to all other circumstances of the case, which means that where the allegation is of cruelty, it can consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected, having regard to the meaning of the word 'cruelty' in Section 498-A IPC."