Appeal
Appeal against High Court confirming the conviction
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 6th August, 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 1993 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and three other co-accused and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased. The deceased was married to one Ram Sajeevan.
Facts
Prosecution case is there was harassment by the husband
3. It is the case of the prosecution that there was harassment at the end of the husband, in-laws and the 1 appellant (Jeth) herein to the deceased.
Deceased poured kerosene and set herself on fire and father of the deceased lodged FIR
4. The deceased doused herself with kerosene and set herself on fire on 27-09-1990. She died on account of severe burn injuries. The father of the deceased lodged a First Information Report with the Ajgain Police Station, District Unnao on the very same day. The gist of the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased reads thus:-
“ …… ”
Charge sheet was filed for the offences under section 304B IPC and charges were framed
5. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offence of dowry death punishable under Section 304B of the IPC, against four accused persons which included the appellant herein. The offence being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was committed under the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Charges were framed against four accused persons including the appellant herein.
Trial court acquitted all the accused from section 304B IPC but convicted for suicide [sections 306 and 498A IPC]
6. It appears that although the original charge framed by the trial court was one for dowry death punishable under Section 304B of the IPC yet, the trial court acquitted all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, however convicted them for the offence of abetment of suicide punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC respectively.
Appeal preferred by co-accused and the husband undergone sentence and did not prefer any appeal against his conviction
7. We are informed that the father-in-law and mother-in-law passed away while the appeal before the High Court was pending. So far as, the husband is concerned he has already undergone the sentence as imposed by the trial court. In fact, he did not file any appeal against his conviction.
Analysis
10. We have looked into the oral evidence on record. We have also looked into the nature of the allegations levelled against the appellant herein.
No evidence against brother-in-law abetted suicide
11. We are of the view that there is practically no evidence on the basis of which it could be said that the appellant herein as brother-in-law abetted the commission of suicide. We need not say anything further in the matter.
Legal analysis of sections 306 IPC and section 113B IEA
12. The law as regards the abetment of suicide punishable under Sections 306 of the IPC is now well settled. It appears that the Courts below laid much emphasis on Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Evidence Act”). Sections 113A & 113B of the Evidence Act talks about presumption. Sections 113A and 113B respectively read thus:-
“………….:
The court cannot presume suicide under section 113A IEA unless there is proof of aiding or instigating
13. It is relevant to note that under Section 113B, the Court shall presume dowry death unlike Section 113A where the provision says that Court may presume abetment of suicide. This is the vital difference between the two provisions which raises presumption as regards abetment of suicide. When the Courts below want to apply Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards cruelty & harassment. In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightway invoke Section 113A and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide.
Conclusion
14. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court as confirmed by the High Court is hereby set aside.
Party
Ram Pyarey (Appellant) vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent) – Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015 – 2025 INSC 71 – 09th January, 2025
