LexPARVEEN KUMAR versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 54 : 2024 INSC 717 Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No(S). 1014-1015 of 2013) 23 September 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose, if the High Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the husband u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC for subjecting the victim-wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A and 306 – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Abetment of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman – Victim- wife committed suicide by consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide-insecticide within two years of marriage – FIR by the victim’s brother alleging that the husband had subjected the victim to cruelty and forced her to commit suicide – Trial court convicted and sentenced the husband for the offence u/s.498-A however, acquitted him for the offence u/s.306 – High Court upheld the order of conviction u/s.498A as also convicted and sentenced him u/s.306 – Challenge to: Held: Giving birth to a male child by the victim and filing of three cases during her life time against the husband-appellant, FIR u/ ss.498-A and 506; complaint u/s.107/151 CrPC and case u/s.125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and her child, not disputed – Fact of the deceased having committed suicide by consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide-insecticide, also duly proved by the prosecution – Courts below concurrently held the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.498-A by holding that the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty – Appellant’s case that as per the suicide note, the suicide was committed by the deceased on account of her intolerable pain and illness and not due to the cruelty of the appellant, cannot be accepted – * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. 55 Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh Suicidal note not duly exhibited for being admitted in evidence, as also the appellant had not even bothered to inform the parents of the deceased immediately after the incident smacked of his guilt – High Court rightly raised the presumption u/s.113A to hold that the suicide was abetted by the appellant – Prosecution by leading cogent evidence established that the deceased had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that the husband had subjected her to cruelty as contemplated in s.498-A – Thus, no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant for the offences u/ss.498-A and 306. [Paras 9-11] Case Law Cited Hans Raj v. State of Haryana [2004] 2 SCR 676 : 2004 (12) SCC 257; Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana [2024] 2 SCR 830 : 2024 (3) SCC 573 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Subjecting wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide; Abetment of suicide; Presumption as to abetment of suicide by married woman; Consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide,insecticide; Commission of wilful conduct; Maintenance; Presumption u/s.113A of the Evidence Act. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1014- 1015 of 2013 From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2011 of the High Court of H.P. at Shimla in CRLA Nos. 97 and 325 of 2000 Appearances for Parties Ashok Tobria, M.S. Yadav, Rajesh Kumar Pandey, S.Y. Usmani, Rishi Kumar, Sahil Kaushik, Sachin Soni, Mayank Yadav, Pushkar Anand, Advs. for the Appellant. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Sarthak Chiller, Rohit Lochav, Advs. for the Respondent. 56 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Bela M. Trivedi, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of the common Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in the Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2000 preferred by the appellant-Parveen Kumar and the Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2000 preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. The short facts as curled out from the record are that on 10.10.1992 the appellant had married Raksha Devi (the deceased). The said Raksha Devi gave birth to a male child from the loins of the appellant at her parental home on 18.12.1993. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant used to beat his wife even when she was pregnant and therefore, she had gone away to her parental h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.