S.113A Evidence Act | Wife's Suicide Within Seven Years Of Marriage Doesn't Automatically Trigger Presumption Of Abetment Against Husband: J&K HC
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
5 Sep 2024 6:19 AM GMT
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the mere fact that a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage does not automatically invoke the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 deals with the presumption of suicide abetment by a husband or relative of a married woman.
The Court emphasized that such a presumption may only be raised when it is shown that the husband or a relative of the husband had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as defined under Section 498-A of the RPC, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
Highlighting the term “May Presume” used in Section 113-A Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,
“.. the term “the Court may presume, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband”, would clearly indicate that the presumption is discretionary. Mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply”.
Differentiating the presumption that is raised under Section 113-A from the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act which is mandatory the court explained that when a presumption under Section 113-A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty and continuous harassment in that regard.
These observations came while hearing a criminal conviction appeal whereby the trial court had convicted one Showkat Ahmad Rather under Sections 498-A and 306 RPC and sentenced him to two years and seven years of rigorous imprisonment for each charge, respectively.
This case originated from an incident in which Shaheena, the wife of the appellant Rather, died under mysterious circumstances on April 17, 2006. Her brother, Maqsood Ahmad Sofi, lodged a complaint alleging that the deceased had been harassed by her in-laws over dowry demands, which allegedly drove her to commit suicide by consuming poison.
Assailing his conviction the appellant, represented by senior counsel Mr. S.T. Hussain, argued that there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty, as required under Section 498-A RPC. The defence also contended that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased's death was a result of abetment by the appellant, as per Section 306 RPC.
The prosecution, represented by Mr Ilyas Nazir Laway, countered that the evidence presented at trial, including testimonies from family members of the deceased, pointed to dowry harassment and cruelty, which allegedly led the deceased to take her life.
Meticulously examining the evidence presented, including testimonies of witnesses and expert reports the Court noted the inconsistent testimonies on Dowry Demand as some witnesses claimed the relations between the couple were cordial, while others referred to dowry demands without witnessing any overt acts of cruelty.
The court also took note of the independent witnesses who were neighbours of the deceased and had testified that they had never heard any complaints from the deceased about dowry harassment, hence contradicting the prosecution's claims.
Observing that for a conviction under Section 498-A, it must be established that cruelty was of such nature as to coerce the woman to commit suicide the court added that for Section 306 RPC, there must be clear proof of abetment to suicide.
“In the instant case, as is evident from a reading of the entire evidence, there is nothing on record to even suggest that there was any instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the appellant to drive the deceased into such a situation where she was left with no option but to take extreme step of ending her own life”, the bench remarked.
Referencing the Supreme Court rulings in Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2014) and Hans Raj v. State of Haryana (2004), the bench went on to underscore the discretionary nature of the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act.
The Court held that the presumption of abetment cannot be automatically applied just because a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage. Instead, it must be shown that cruelty was meted out to the woman, which was not sufficiently established in this case.
It added, “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 had subjected her to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A, presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act may be raised having regard to all the circumstances of the case that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband”,
Based on the lack of convincing evidence and in light of the discretionary nature of Section 113-A, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.
Case Title: Showkat Ahmad Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 252
