In a landmark decision, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that a woman’s suicide within seven years of marriage does not automatically imply abetment by the husband. The Court overturned an earlier conviction under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
The ruling came after an appeal against a conviction and sentencing by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bandipora, dated November 26, 2013. The lower court had sentenced the appellant to two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A RPC and seven years under Section 306 RPC, along with fines totaling ₹15,000.
Background of the Case:
The case stemmed from the death of a woman who died on April 17, 2006, under mysterious circumstances. Her brother lodged a complaint with the police, alleging that she was harassed by her in-laws, driving her to suicide. The police registered an FIR under Sections 498-A and 306 RPC, leading to an arrest and subsequent conviction by the trial court.
Key Legal Issues:
The appeal before the High Court centered on two major legal questions:
1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove cruelty towards the deceased, as required under Section 498-A RPC.
2. Whether the legal presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act — which allows for a presumption of abetment of suicide within seven years of marriage — could be automatically applied against the husband.
Court’s Observations and Ruling:
Justice Sanjeev Kumar, who presided over the appeal, critically analyzed the testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence presented. The Court emphasized that the mere fact of a woman’s suicide within seven years of marriage does not, by itself, constitute proof of abetment by her husband.
Quoting the judgment, Justice Kumar stated:
“The presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is discretionary and not automatic. There must be clear evidence of cruelty or harassment linked to an unlawful demand for dowry to invoke this presumption.”
The Court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove that the deceased was subjected to continuous harassment or cruelty. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and lacked the necessary details to establish cruelty under Section 498-A RPC.
Regarding the charge under Section 306 RPC, the Court noted that there was no concrete evidence showing any direct role in instigating or abetting the deceased’s suicide. The forensic evidence, which suggested poisoning as a possible cause of death, was deemed inconclusive, as the medical expert could not definitively state whether the poison was consumed voluntarily or accidentally.
The Court underscored that criminal convictions require proof beyond reasonable doubt, and presumptions should not be applied lightly without substantial evidence. Justice Kumar further observed:
“Without evidence of an overt or covert act by the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, a conviction under Section 306 RPC cannot stand.”
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and ordering release.
