SCC ONLINE SC 660
(Criminal Appeal No.940-941 0f 2021)
Facts-
Gumansingh solemnized marriage with Tahera (deceased) on the date 27/04/1997, after that deceased was residing with GumanSingh and his family which includes his mother as well. Guman Singh was continuously asking his deceased wife about 25000/-rupees to bring from her father. GumanSingh wants to do diary business so wants to bring buffalo from that amount. Tahera (deceased) was unable to meet the demands of his husband due to the weak financial condition of her father, as he was running a tea stall for his livelihood and he was already indebted. Gumansingh started beating her as she was unable to meet his demands, as this beating-up practice become very frequent with the deceased. The mother-in-law of the deceased (Tahera) used to pick up a quarrel with her on the pretext that she does not know cooking and also does not perform any household work. The deceased (Tahera) committed suicide after consuming the poisonous pesticide Diazoin Organophospahte in her matrimonial house on date 14/12/1997 between 5:00 to 5:30 in the evening. She committed suicide after 8 months of her marriage due to continuous fights and intentionally mental and physical cruelty committed by Gumansingh and his mother to the deceased.
Issues Raised-
1. Whether the accused (Gumansingh and his mother) is liable or not under Section 498A of IPC?
2. Whether the accused(Guman Singh and his mother) is liable or not under section 306 of the Indian Penal code read with section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act?
3. Whether the statement was given by close relatives as a witness and no independent witness is justified or not?
Contention-
The Learned Counsel who represents Appellant (Guman Singh and his mother) contented that- The conviction which is recorded by the Trial Court and High Court of Gujrat is not tenable. Guman Singh (Appellant) has asked for a loan of Rupees 25000/- to start a dairy business and to bring buffalo for this purpose. The deceased was suffering from mental illness. There was no independent witness as it is suspected that, only close relatives were examined as a witness by Prosecution.
The Learned Counsel of State of Gujrat contended that-All the ingredients of conviction under Section 306, Section 498A with section113A of the Indian Evidence Act are fulfilled and are submitted before the Hon’ble Court. It is also suicidal death within 8 months of marriage and cruelty observed so it falls under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Rationale-
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme court held that the conviction under section 498A (Husband or relative of husband subjecting to her cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) with section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act is valid. The trial court and High Court of Gujrat on holding that appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
The Hon’ble court highlighted that in this case, the three elements of section 113A[1] are-
- Women committed suicide
- Suicide committed within 7 years of marriage.
- Husband of deceased and relatives of husband committed cruelty to the deceased.
The cruelty as per section 498A Indian Penal code[2]–
- Willful conduct drives a woman to commit suicide, danger life, limb or health or cause grave injury.
- Harassment with the woman to coerce her or any person related to her to unlawful demand (property or valuable security) and in failure to meet demand by her or her any relative.
The Hon’ble court highlighted that if the deceased commits suicide within 7 years of marriage it will attract Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act and if presumption exists and that led to no rebut of presumption from the accused it will be considered that appellant has abetted the deceased to commit suicide[3]. The Court also highlighted section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act which defines ‘May Presume’ and ‘Shall presume’. Section 113A highlights the term ‘may presume’ which has the same mean as per section 4[4] of Indian Evidence Act that, Court may presume a fact it may either regard such fact as proved until and unless it is disproved or call for proof of it.
The Court also highlighted the meaning of ‘abetment for thing’ as per section 107[5] concerning section 306[6] Of Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted that Section 107 has the necessary ingredients-
- Instigates person to perform the act
- Engage one or more people in the conspiracy to perform the act or illegal omission as prohibited by law in pursuance of a conspiracy to perform that thing.
- Intentionally aids, an act or illegal omission, the doing that thing.
-when a person willfully misrepresents or conceals the fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, attempts to cause or procures a thing is to be done and is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to produce direct evidence about Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code but the prosecution also focused on section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act and established a charge of abetment against the accused.
The Hon’ble court held that in this, all the necessary ingredients are satisfied with Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. This Hon’ble Court also emphasises that the appellant alleged in the court on Suspicion of the evidentiary value of closed witness by Prosecution and there is no independent witness. On this, the Hon’ble court highlighted that, it is considered unreasonable to discard any evidence which is given by the interested witness and if the rejection is take place what will be the ground of rejection ‘interested or partisan’[7]. The court also highlighted that it is the Judicial approach to deal with evidence more cautiously and it will not be rejected on the ground of ‘partisan or interested witness’ if its failure the justice then can only be considered.
The Hon’ble Court also highlighted that cruelty which is committed against women is within the boundary and usually, it is noticed that no other person has seen an interested, or unconnected person become the witness of the domestic cruelty. The person who suffers domestic cruelty shares her trauma with her close ones can be her father, mother, sister, brother and so on, and the evidentiary value of relatives as witnesses/ interested witnesses will not be rejected on the ground that they are relatives of deceased. If the evidence itself is reliable and inspires the trust of the court and without any infirmities, in such a case, the evidence will be considered.
Defects in law-
In this instant case, the laws which are involved – are the Indian Penal Code, and the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code- This section 498A was inserted in 1983. The main purpose of the section is to protect women in their matrimonial houses. If women face any kind of cruelty in her matrimonial house, she can file a complaint against those persons. As it was highlighted in Rupali Devi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)[8], that if women face any kind of acts which is committed in a matrimonial home which directly affect the mental health of women that would amount to cruelty. This provision is given by legislation to women to use a shield to protect and not a sword. But it was observed in recent times that there is a misuse of section 498A by women.
In the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma V Union of India[9], it was highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there are many complaints under this section 498A not having bonafide motive but observed as frivolous & vexatious in nature.
Section 306 Of Indian Penal Code- Abetment of suicide, this section emphasises that any kind of abetment which resulted in suicidal death, in such case person who abets will be liable for punishment which extends to ten years and also liable of fine.
In the case of Sangarabonia Sreenu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh,[10] in this case, it was highlighted the main elements of section 306 are -suicidal death and abetment.
In the case of Swamy Prahalad Vs State of MP[11], it was highlighted that simply uttering the words,’ go and die’ is not sufficient enough and the accused was not convicted under section 306, but in the case of Pallem Daniel Victoralions Victor Manter Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh[12], in this case, it is highlighted that it is important that such abetment by the accused to aid or instigate the person to commit suicide. So, as per this in this section, it is not highlighted that what are the essential ingredients are considered for the abetment of suicide it was observed that simply uttering words due to heat of the moment attracts such sections and increased the burden of the judiciary and affects the dignity of the accused who is not liable under this section.
Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act- This section, ‘presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman’ attracts, the woman committed suicide within 7 years of marriage and this attracts section 498A subjected to cruelty. This section focused on presumption, which it presumes by the court until and unless disproved by the accused or rebutted by the party. In this situation, if the accused does not have sufficient evidence to disprove the presumption it may directly affect his right to life. The law is to provide justice but this directly affects the life and dignity of an individual on basis of presumption.
Inference-
From this instant case, it is observed that women are not safe anywhere in society, they become the target of violence and assault anywhere in the society. It can be concluded that such provisions as 498A of the Indian Penal Code somehow bring an opportunity for women to raise voices against cruelty in any form, whether it is for the demand of money or dowry.
In the case of State of Punjab vs Daljit Singh[13] it was held in this case that demand for money even after 4 years of marriage which cause harassment to a woman so she bound to end her life is sufficient enough for a conviction. Such cases reflect the reality of a society the greed of man can harm others to such an extent that one can decide to end his life. With this instant case, it is highlighted that society is male-dominated in which demand for money to run a business is justified but providing financial help or reducing the debts of the deceased’s father is not justified. It highlights that lack of education and knowledge and considering females as burden affects the female to such an extent. In my opinion, I believe this case itself highlights that the judiciary plays an important role to brings justice but it is also important for people at large especially women to must aware of their rights and duties. In this case, Hon’ble Court examine all the necessary ingredients of the sections and provide justice to the deceased.
NAME – Astha Mishra
B.A.LLB, 5th Year
AMITY UNIVERSITY, RAJASTHAN
Submitted by-
Astha Mishra
Amity Law School.
[1] Section 113A- Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman, Indian Evidence Act.
[2] Section 498 A-Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty, Indian Penal Code.
[3] Ramesh Vithal Patil Vs State of Karnataka & Ors, (2014) 11 SCC 516.
[4] Section 4- May Presume, Shall Presume, Conclusive proof, Indian Evidence Act.
[5] Section 107- Abetment of Thing, Indian Penal Code.
[6] Section 306-Abetment of Suicide, Indian Penal Code.
[7] Masalti and Ors Vs State of UP, AIR1965 SC202, p.209-210 para 14.
[8] LNIND 2019, SC 331.
[9] AIR2005, SC 3100.
[10] (1997), 4 Supreme 214
[11] Criminal Appeal No. of 1995, decided on April 18, 1995.
[12] (1997)1Crimes 499(AP).
[13] 1999 Cr LJ 2723(P&H).