Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge felt thatit was a lit case, wherein presumption under Section 113A, Evidence Act be drawn against the appellants, who have failed to discharge the burden. He further held that it was not at all a case of dowry death or a case for demanding the dowry but from the evidence, it was established that the appellants subjected her to cruelty and, thus, abetted her to commit suicide. He, however, by giving benefit of reasonable doubt, acquitted co-accused Smt. Mangi but by his impugned judgment dt. 19-6-92 convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 306, I.P.C. in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal.

8. Now let us find out as to whether the Provisions of Section 113A, Evidence Act can be pressed into service in this case ? Section 113A, Evidence Act runs as under:-

"Presumption as to the abatement of suicide by a married woman. Section 113A when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband."

12. In Jagdish Chander v. State of Haryana (1988 Cri LJ 1048), the Punjab and Haryana High Court), the accused was alleged to have burnt his wife by pouring kerosene oil. There was no reliable or trustworthy evidence on record. He was tried for committing the murder of his wife. His conviction recorded by the trial Judge was quashed. It was the prosecution case that the husband used to take liquor daily despite constant protest from the wife and that he was also in the habit of coming late in the night. Interpreting the provisions of Section 113A, Evidence Act and 498A, I.P.C., it was held that the first requisite for raising the presumption under Section 113A, Evidence Act is that it must be proved that wife was subjected to cruelty as defined in Section 498A, I.P.C. and that the fact of wilful conduct of the accused in taking the liquor almost daily despite constant protest by his wife and his habit of coming home late in the night did not fulfil the essential ingredients of the cruelty as given in Section 498A, I.P.C. In that case, the trial Court had rejected the application of the Public Prosecutor for framing charge against the accused under Section 498A, I.P.C. holding that no sufficient ground for framing such a charge was made out. That order was not challenged by the prosecution. It was held that the same matter could not be re-agitated and the alleged cruelty having been excluded by the said order, the same could not be taken into consideration for raising a presumption under Section 113A, Evidence Act and the accused was acquitted.

15. In Samir Samanta and anr. v. The State (1992 (3) Crimes 850), it has been held that where the woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband subjected her to cruelty as the term has been defined in Section 498A, the Court may presume having regard to all other circumstances of the case that such suicide had been abetted by such person and that legislature was extremely careful in drafting the provisions of Section 113A, Evidence Act. Had it been the intention of the legislature that the Court should in all cases jump upon a conclusion as a rule that there has been abetment of suicide simply because suicide has been committed by the woman within seven years of marriage and she was subjected to cruelty, the legislature would not have used such flexible expression as "the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband ...." The expression used is 'may presume' and not that rigid as 'shall presume' as used in Section 113A Evidence Act. Therefore, for raising a presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act, all other circumstances of the case have to be taken into consideration. The cruelty or harassment must have been committed soon before the death of such married woman. This reflects the insignia of proximity text. The question as to what length of time will answer the requirement of the words, "soon before", may of course depend upon the facts and circumstances of a case. It was further held that there was no reason to suppose that Section 113A Evidence Act, the language of which is rather all embracing excludes proximity test even when such text is projected by the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, in order to attract presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A, Evidence Act, the facts and circumstances of the case should be such as can reasonably sustain a presumption about the existence of a nexus of cause and effect between the alleged cruelty and suicide.