Deciding Authority: Supreme Court
Briefly, the facts of the case were:
The appellant and his parents were tried and accused for offences punishable under section 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also accused under the Dowry Prohibition Act’ 1961. The appellant and the victim had been married for a month when the appellant took her to Mumbai where he owned a jewellery shop.The victim complained of an eye problem but overlooking that, she was taken by the appellant to a Swami. When the victim returned to her hometown Karwar, she complained of assault and torture by her husband and his family.On 12/06/2002, at 4.00 p.m., PW1- Suresh, his son and wife took the victim to the appellant’s house at Hubbuwada and informed them that they would take her back next day evening. On 13/06/2002, at 12 noon, he called-up Girija (The Victim) and told her that he would visit her matrimonial home and speak to A1 about the harassment and torture meted out to her. Girija told him that if he visits her house, her in-laws would torture her more and, therefore, he should not come. On 13/06/2002, at 2.30 p.m, the appellant phoned and told him that Girija was not speaking anything. He went to the appellant’s house along with his wife and sons. His son Sandeep saw Girija in the bedroom situated on the upper floor. She was not able to speak. Sandeep lifted her and brought her downstairs in order to show her to the doctor. The moment the doctor checked her, he pronounced her dead. Girija has committed suicide due to the torture meted out to her by her husband and his family.
Judgment:
The judgment given in this case was an examination of each vital point. Evidence to prove cruelty was taken into consideration. The court said:
We have carefully gone through the explanation offered by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code as requested by his counsel. It confirms our view that the appellant is not innocent. After denying the allegations of ill-treatment, cruelty and demand of dowry, the appellant goes on to paint a rosy picture of his married life. He refers to certain photographs and a Valentine day’s card sent by Girija to him in 2002. Valentine day’s card sent by Girija to the appellant does not help him to probablise his alleged good conduct. In the facts of this case it appears to us to be an effort made by Girija to please the appellant. The photographs were produced in the court to show that Girija was taken to religious places and hill stations. Trial court has rightly not placed reliance on them. As regard the photographs it has observed that in the photographs Girija is seen standing alone and, therefore, on the basis of these photographs it cannot be said that the appellant had taken her to religious places or for honeymoon. Perhaps to create an impression that Girija was suffering from depression, the appellant comes out with a story that Girija used to consume pills everyday and when he enquired about it she used to give evasive answers. According to him she used to lead a life of an introvert and she preferred loneliness. She never watched T.V., she never read any newspapers or books. When he asked her about it she stated that she had an eye problem. He has further gone on to say that he blamed Girija’s parents that they had suppressed her eye trouble from him and got her married to him. He further goes on to say that for this reason she was not willing to give birth to a child. This story is palpably false and is a crude attempt to create an impression that Girija was mentally unstable. No such evidence is brought on record.
Two most vital circumstances which must be kept in mind while dealing with this case are that Girija had committed suicide in the matrimonial home and her death took place within seven years of her marriage. Presumption under Section 113 – A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 springs into action which says that when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The question is whether the appellant has been able to rebut this presumption.
7. Medical evidence is of great importance in this case. PW7-Dr. Sailaja had done Girija’s post-mortem. She found the following injuries on Girija:
“1. On right side of head there was little swelling and wound on the forehead.
2. On the right eye lower eyelid and on the neck there was weal’s of specific area and the eye was bleeded.
3. There was swelling on the right side of neck.
4. On the right hand thumb bottom there was blue mark having an area 3’x2 ½’.
5. To the inner side of the arm the blood was clotted having an area of 2’ x 1’.
6. To the inner side of the wrist the skin was blackened having an area 1’ x ½’.
Below the thumb the blood was clotted covering an area 2’ x 1’.” Dr. Sailaja opined that cyanide poisoning was the cause of death. She stated that all the external wounds were caused prior to post-mortem. According to her, the wounds on the right side of head can be sustained if a person is beaten with hands. According to her report, they could be caused by hard and blunt object when the deceased was alive. In the cross- examination, it was suggested to her that if the dead body falls on rough surface, the wounds, which she had seen, could be caused. She denied the suggestion. Thus, it is clear that Girija was beaten up prior to the death.
Decision:
In the ultimate analysis we are of the opinion that the appellant has not been able to rebut presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Girija committed suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage in her matrimonial home. Impact of this circumstance was clearly missed by the trial court. The evidence on record establishes that Girija was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the appellant in their matrimonial home which drove her to commit suicide. The appellant is guilty of abetment of suicide. The High Court has rightly reversed the judgment of the trial court acquitting the appellant. And the Supreme Court favours that dismissing the appeal.