NARESH KUMAR [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. STATE OF HARYANA [RESPONDENT(S)]
CRIMINAL APPEAL (NO.) 1722 of 2010
(2JB, J.B.PARDIWALA and MANOJ MISRA JJ.)
Facts: The present appeal is at the instance of a convict accused and is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 762-SB of 1998, by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 08.09.1998/10.09.1998 in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 1996 holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
Issue: Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant convict submitted that the Courts below committed an error in holding the appellant guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. He would submit that there is not an iota of evidence to even remotely suggest that there was any kind of harassment, physical or mental, to the deceased by her husband. In such circumstances, he would submit that the conviction be set aside and the appellant convict be acquitted.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:
On the other hand, Ms. Sabarni Som, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana, submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Courts below in holding the appellant guilty of the alleged offence. Much emphasis was laid on the fact that the deceased committed suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the State tried to fortify her above referred submission by relying on Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Evidence Act’) which enables raising of presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. She would submit that the oral evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 has been well appreciated and the Courts below have rightly held the appellant guilty of the alleged offence.
Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “The mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. 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, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act may be raised, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.”
