Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court, on January 9, 2025, acquitted an accused charged with cruelty and abetment of suicide, emphasizing that clear evidence of incessant harassment is indispensable to invoke the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court clarified that in the absence of such evidence, the provision cannot be automatically applied.

Context of Section 113B

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act provides for a presumption regarding dowry death. The section states: “When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.”

The case in question involved the brother-in-law (jeth) of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed by her husband, in-laws, and the appellant, culminating in her dousing herself with kerosene and setting herself on fire. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Sections 306 (Abetment of Suicide) and 498A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court subsequently affirmed this conviction, leading to the present appeal.

The Supreme Court's Findings

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that there was “practically no evidence” against the appellant to substantiate the claim of abetment of suicide. The Court highlighted the distinction between Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing:

• Section 113A, concerning the presumption of abetment of suicide, allows the Court to “may presume” abetment if the woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty.

• Section 113B mandates the Court to “shall presume” the dowry death of a woman if she was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death related to dowry demands.

The Court emphasized that the presumption under Section 113B requires cogent evidence of incessant harassment or abetment. In the absence of such evidence, the Court cannot directly apply Section 113B to presume guilt.

Examination of Evidence

The Court scrutinized the evidence presented and concluded that it was insufficient to establish the appellant’s involvement in abetting the deceased’s suicide. The prosecution's allegations lacked corroborative evidence linking the appellant’s actions to the incident.

Distinction Between Sections 113A and 113B

While both provisions address presumptions related to unnatural deaths of married women, Section 113B mandates stringent presumption which requires a direct connection between the harassment for dowry and the death. The Court reiterated that harassment must be proven to be continuous and directly linked to dowry demands to invoke Section 113B.

Verdict 

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, allowing the appeal. The appellant, already on bail, was acquitted, and his bail bonds were discharged. This ruling reinforces the necessity for courts to rely on substantive evidence before invoking presumptions under Section 113B.

Cause Title: Ram Pyarey V/S State of UP

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 202

Date: January-09-2025

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]