Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
10. Dr. Pandey also referred to the decision of this Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 281], where the vires of Section 498-A IPC had been challenged. In the course of his submissions, the question also surfaced as to whether the consequences of "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC, which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide, were required to be established in order to apply the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. The said case examined the provisions of Section 304-B IPC in relation to Section 498-A IPC and the effect of Section 304-B of the Evidence Act, and in course of such discussion, it was sought to be observed that the basic difference between Sections 306 IPC and 498-A IPC is that of intention. It was held that under Section 498-A IPC, cruelty committed by the husband or his relations result in the woman committing suicide, whereas Section 306 involves the abetting of an offence under Section 306 IPC with the intention of making the victim take recourse to taking her own life.
16. As will be evident from the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, and, particularly, those advanced by Dr. Pandey, the differences between the provisions of Section 498-A IPC and 306 IPC, in the light of Section 107 IPC and Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, assumes importance. That there is sufficient evidence to bring home a charge under Section 498-A IPC, is not seriously disputed. What is urged in all earnestness on behalf of the Petitioner is that in the absence of any intention to instigate Hirabai into committing suicide by his actions, which may at best amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC, the provisions of Section 107 IPC and Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act were not attracted to the facts of the case.
20. All the decisions on the point cited by Dr. Pandey, deal with the differences in relation to the provisions of Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC, except in Sushil Kumar Sharma's case (supra), where the provisions of Section 498-A IPC had been considered in the context of Section 304-B IPC. In that context, it was sought to be explained that the big difference between Section 306 IPC and 498- A IPC is that of intention. The provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act or its impact on an offence under Section 498-A IPC or Section 306 IPC vis-`-vis Section 107 IPC was not considered in any of these decisions.
21. In our view, it is the said provision which makes all the difference as far as the present case is concerned. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act establishes a link between an offence under Section 498-A IPC, 107 IPC and 306 IPC, thereby permitting the Court to presume the commission of an offence under section 107 IPC on the basis of evidence adduced to prove an offence under Section 498-A IPC. As mentioned hereinbefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 13 is sufficient to establish the prosecution case against the Petitioner under Section 498-A IPC and Section 306 IPC.