LexHEERA LAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 259 HEERA LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 790of2017) APRIL 24, 2017 [R. F. NARIMAN AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.I Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 306, 498A - Evidence Act, J 872 - A B s. J 13A - Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman - On facts, wife committed suicide within jive years of C marriage - Dying declaration made to SDM that her in-laws quarreling with her every day - Trial court held that offence uls. 498A not made out but convicted the in-laws u/s. 306 and sentenced accordingly - Said order upheld by the High Court - On appeal, held: Victim was not subjected to cruelty by in-laws - Jn-laws were 0 absolved of the charge of cruelty, the most basic ingredient for the offence uls. 498A, the third ingredient for application of s. J J 3A is missing - Presumption u/s. 113A would not apply since no link or intention on the part of in-laws to assist the victim to commit suicide - Jn the absence thereof, mere fact that there is a finding of harassment would not lead to the conclusion that there is abetment of suicide - E Thus, since in-laws were acquitted for crime u/s. 498A, abetment of suicide uls. 306 not made out - Order passed by the High Court set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 113A of the Evidence Act requires three ingredients to be satisfied before it can be applied i.e., (i) that a woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and (iii) the husband or his relatives who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. [Para 611262-D-El 1.2 Having absolved the appellants of the charge of cruelty, which is the most basic ingredient for the offence made out under Section 498A, the third ingredient for application of Section 113A is missing, namely, that the relatives i.e., the mother-in-law and 259 F G H 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A father-in-law who are charged under Section 306 had subjected the victim to cruelty. No doubt, in the facts of this case, it has been concurrently found that the in-laws did harass her, but harassment is something of a lesser degree than cruelty. Also, the facts, taken as a whole, that assuming the presumption under B Section 113A would apply, it has been fully rebutted, for the reason that there is no link or intention on the part of the in-laws to assist the victim to commit suicide. In the absence of this vital link, the mere fact that there is a finding of harassment would not lead to the conclusion that there is "abetment of suicide". On facts, thus, especially in view of the fact that the appellants have C been acquitted for the crime under Section 498 A of the Code, abetment of suicide under Section 306 is not made out. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. (Paras 8- 11 ][263-F-H; 264-A-CI Ramesh Kumar VS. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 sec D 618 : [2001) 4 Suppl. SCR 247 - referred to. Case Law Reference [20011 4 Suppl. SCR 247 referred to Para 7 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. E 790of2017. F G From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2016 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in CRLA No. 260 of 2004. Ajay Chaudhary, Paramvir Singh, Viresh Chaudhary, Pradeep Yadav, Ms. Man ju Jetley, Advs. for t~e Appellants. K. L. Janjani, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Ms. Varsha Rana, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. I. Leave granted. 2. In the present case, an F.l.R. dated 28'h March, 2002 was lodged in which it was stated that the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the lady who committed suicide harassed her for at least five years and this harassment, therefore, led to offences being committed under Sections 498A and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial H Court relied upon the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, who were neighbours, HEERA LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 261 [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] who attested to the fact that there was harassment meted by the in-laws A to the dead lady. Medical evidence also shows that there were 90% bums as the lady had poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. Most importantly, according to both the Trial Court and the High Court, a dying declaration was made before PW 9 who was a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which reads as follows:- "ThePW-9, Himmat Singh has stated that as o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.