ATMARAM S/O RAYSINGH RATHOD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 08-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 1 S.C.R. 867 
ATMARAM S/O RAYSINGH RATHOD 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2004) 
FEBRUARY 08, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND CHANDRAMAULI 
KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
s. 113-A - Presumption as to abetment of suicide -
'Cruelty' - Suicide by second wife of appellant -. Conviction 
A 
8 
c 
of appellant ulss 306 and 498-A - Held: It is not the case of 
prosecution that appellant had subjected the deceased to 
cruelty of the nature described in clause (b) of Explanation 0 
to s.498A, /PC - As regards clause (a) of the Explanation, 
prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable 
doubt that appellant was guilty of any wilful conduct which was 
of such a nature as was likely to drive deceased to commit 
suicide - Therefore, presumption u/s 113A is not attracted E 
and the appellant cannot also be held guilty of abetting 
suicide of deceased - Judgment of courts below holding the 
appellant guilty of offences punishable u/ss 306 and 498-A 
/PC are set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 306 and 498-A. 
The appellant, his first wife and his parents were 
F 
prosecuted for committing offences punishable u/ss 306 
and 498 read with s.34 IPC, on the allegations that the 
accused ill-treated the second wife of the appellant and 
did not give her food for two days because she delivered 
a female child, as a result of which she jumped into a well G 
with her daughter and committed suicide. The trial court, 
on the strength of s.113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872, 
convicted the accused of the offences charged and 
867 
H 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A sentenced to them to imprisonment of three years and a 
fine of Rs.5000/- each. The High Court affirmed the 
conviction and sentence of the appellant, but .acquitted 
the other accused. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A reading of s. 113A of the Evidence Act, 
1872 will show that for the purposes of the said section, 
'cruelty' shall have the same meaning as in s.498A, IPC. 
Therefore, to convict a husband or any relative of the 
C husband of a woman or to draw presumption as to 
abetment of suicide by a married woman by her husband 
or any relative of her husband in case of suicide 
committed by a woman within a period of seven years 
from the date of her marriage, there must first be evidence 
D to establish that such husband or the relative of her· 
husband committed cruelty of the nature described in 
clauses (a) or (b) of the Explanation to s.498A, IPC. [para 
7) [874-G-H; 875-A-B] 
E 
1.2. In the instant case, it is not the case of the 
prosecution that the appellant had subjected the 
deceased to cruelty of the nature described in clause (b) 
of Explanation to s.498A, IPC, as there is no allegation 
that the appellant had harassed her with a view to coerce 
F her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful 
demand for any property or valuable security or that he 
subjected her to harassment on account of failure by her 
or any person related to her to meet such demand. [para 
8] [875-C-E] 
G 
1.3. As regards Clause (a) of the Explanation to s. 
498A, the High Court has relied on Ext. 47 I.e. a written . 
undertaking dated 17.4.1988 given by appellant to give 
equal treatment to both his wives. Exts. 47 Is an evidence 
of some misbehaviour of the appellant towards the 
H deceased but the nature of the misbehaviour has not 
ATMARAM S/O RAYSINGH RATHOD v. STATE OF 
869 
MAHARASHTRA 
been stated in it. Besides, the drowning of the deceased 
A 
took place three months after Ext. 47 had been execuited. 
For holding the appellant guilty of the offences u/s 306 
and 498A, IPC, there must be evidence of wilful conduct 
of the appellant towards the deceased soon before her 
death which could have driven her to commit suicide. 
B 
The post mortem examination report of deceased 
described her as 'well nourished' and the last meal was 
taken by her within six hours. Moreover, the post mortem 
examination report does not show that the deceased was 
subjected to any severe beating before her death. [para c 
3, 9, 11 and 13] [871-D; 876-E; 877-C-D; 879-C-D] 
1.4. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove 
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of 
any wilful conduct which was of such a nature as was 
likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Rather, 
D 
there appears to be some evidence in the depositions of 
PW-1 · and PW-4 (father and sister of the deceased) that 
the deceased was sad due 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.