03/03/2024
Married woman committed su***de within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply.
The Supreme Court has asked the courts to be very careful and vigilant in applying the correct principles of law on abetment of su***de, as such an incident within seven years of marriage of a woman should not lead to the inevitable conclusion of guilt, unless cruelty was proved against the husband.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said the mere fact that the deceased committed su***de within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply.
The court acquitted Naresh Kumar in the case related to su***de of his wife on November 19, 1993 after their marriage on May 10, 1992. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has in 2008 upheld the trial court's order of 1998 holding him guilty in the case.
In its order, the court said criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment.
"It is exactly what has happened in this case. It did not take more than 10 minutes for this Court to reach to an inevitable conclusion that the conviction of the appellant convict for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is not sustainable in law," the bench said.
"The ordeal for the appellant started some time in 1993 and is coming to the end in 2024, i.e. almost after a period of 30 years of suffering. At the same time, we are also mindful of the fact that a young woman died leaving behind her 6 months old infant. No crime should go unpunished. But at the same time, the guilt of the accused has to be determined in accordance with law," the bench said.
The bench said the legislative mandate is that where a woman commits su***de within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act may be raised, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such su***de had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
However, making a distinction between 113A and 113B, which dealt with presumption on dowry death, the bench said in Section 113A the legislature has used the word ‘may’, whereas in Section 113B the word used is ‘shall’.
"The court should be extremely careful in assessing evidence under section 113A for finding out if cruelty was meted out. If it transpires that a victim committing su***de was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit su***de, the conscience of the Court would not be satisfied for holding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of su***de was guilty," the bench said.
The court also said it is now well settled that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of su***de. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit su***de. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous, the bench said.
In the absence of any cogent evidence of harassment or cruelty, an accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC by raising presumption under Section 113A, the bench said.
In the case at hand, the bench said the two courts faltered as they failed to apply the correct principles of law to the evidence on record on the subject of abetment of su***de. The two courts got enamoured by just three things, (i) the deceased committed su***de within seven years of marriage, (ii) the accused was demanding money from the parents of the deceased for starting some business, and (iii) the deceased used to remain tense.
Highlighting the settled principles of law to be made applicable to the matters of the present type, the bench said in the case of accusation for abetment of su***de, the court should look for cogent and convincing proof of the act of incitement to the commission of su***de and such an offending action should be proximate to the time of occurrence.
"Appreciation of evidence in criminal matters is a tough task and when it comes to appreciating the evidence in cases of abetment of su***de punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, it is more arduous. The court must remain very careful and vigilant in applying the correct principles of law governing the subject of abetment of su***de while appreciating the evidence on record. Otherwise it may give an impression that the conviction is not legal but rather moral," the bench said.
