Presumption U/s 113A Evidence Act Would Not Automatically Apply Merely Because Wife Commited Suicide Within Seven Years Of Marriage: J&K&L HC
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court acquitted a husband of charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the RPC while observing that the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply if the wife committed suicide within seven years of her marriage.
The Court clarified that when a presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty and “continuous harassment.”
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed, “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. 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.”
Senior Advocate S.T. Hussain appeared for the appellant, while GA Ilyas Nazir Laway represented the respondents.
The trial court had convicted the husband (appellant) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the RPC. the husband challenged the said conviction before the High Court under
The brother (complainant) of the deceased wife had moved a complaint before the police after the death of his sister. The post-mortem revealed the cause of death to be from poisoning. The complainant then filed another complaint alleging harassment by the in-laws on the wife, which, as per the complainant, forced the deceased to end her life by committing suicide.
The High Court stated that the prosecution had been able to conclusively prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment so as to coerce her to meet the dowry demand.
“There is nothing incriminating stated except a parrotlike version made by the prosecution witnesses that the deceased was telling her parents that there was a demand of dowry by the appellant and his parents. The witnesses were, however, very categoric in their statements that no such demand was ever made in their presence,” the Court remarked.
Therefore, the Court stated that even though there was some evidence of demand of dowry, there still was nothing in the prosecution evidence which would suggest that the harassment was meted out to the deceased with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand. “It is, thus, difficult for this Court to conclude that offence under Section 498-A RPC is made out against the appellant,” the Bench held.
“As against the presumption that is raised under Section 113-A, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is mandatory. Therefore, when presumption under Section 113-A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty and continuous harassment in that regard,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and observed, “From the evidence on record, it is difficult for this Court to say that there is enough material on record to conclude that the deceased was subjected to harassment with a view to coercing her to meet the demand of dowry.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Showket Ahmad Rather v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
Appellant: Senior Advocate S.T. Hussain; Advocate Nida Nazir
Respondent: GA Ilyas Nazir Laway