RAJBABU & ANR. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 24-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 270 
A 
RAJBABU & ANR. 
v. 
r
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2003) 
B 
JULY 24, 2008 
[R.V~ RAVEENDRAN ANO DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, .1860 - ss. 306 and 498-A - . Prosecution 
c under - Of husband, mother-in-.Jaw and father-in-law - Sui-
cide committed within seven years of marriage - No direct 
evidence - In dying declaration deceased exculpating all the 
accused - Trial Court convicting husband and mother-in-law 
on the basis of a letter written by the deceased on the date of 
D the occurrence and acquitting father-in-Jaw - Order upheld by 
I 
High Court - On appeal, held: On account of death of hus-
l 
band, his appeal abated - Conviction of Mother-in-Jaw not jus-
~._.,. 
tified - She was entitled to benefit of doubt - The Jetter or the 
evidence of the mother and sister-in-:.f aw of the deceased, do 
t 
E not disclose any act or incident to make out a case of abet-
mentor cruelty - In view of the evidence presumption u/s 113-
A of Evidence Act cannot be invoked to find the guilt uls 306 -
Evidence Act, 1872-s. 113-A. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113-A - Presumption under -
F 
/nvocability -'- Held: Such presumption to be raised keeping 
into consideration nature of cruelty having regard to meaning 
t-
of 'cruelty' ins. 498-A /PC- Mere fact that woman committed 
~ 
suicide within seven years of marriage and was subjected to 
cruelty by her husband or his relative does not automatically 
G give rise to such presumption. 
Prosecution was initiated against 3 accused u/s 306 
\..-. 
and 498-A. Prosecution case was that the deceased was 
f 
married to accused No.1-husband two years prior to the 
)... All 
Y--
occurrence. At the time of occurrence, none of the accused 
H 
270 
RAJBABU & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. 
271 
.... 
were at home. On getting the news that his wife had set A 
herself on fire, accused-husband came home and then 
reported the matter to the police. He took the deceased 
to railway station in order to take her to the hospital. There 
her dying declaration was recorded by Police Station 
lncharge whereby she exculpated all the accused. Imme-
B 
diately thereafter she died. Trial Court acquitted accused 
father-in-law and convicted accused-husband and ac-
cused mother-in-law. High Court upheld the order of trial 
court. Hence the present appeal. During the pendency of 
the appeal accused-husband died rendering the appeal c 
by him abated and infructuous. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The conviction under Sections 306 and 
498-A IPC passed against the appellant No.2 -accused D 
(mother-in-law) is set aside and acquittal is ordered grant'" 
-·i 
ing her benefit of doubt. [Para 20] [285-B] 
1.2 The only evidence that has been produced and 
was used for levelling accusations against the appellant 
was the dying declaration and the contents of Ex. P.1 
E 
which is stated to be a letter written by the deceased. Some 
of the witnesses like PW 1 and PW 3, the family members 
of the parental home of the deceased have stated in their 
deposition about the alleged ill-treatment meted out to the 
deceased by the in-laws family. (Para 6] (277-D,E] 
F 
. 
J 
1.3 A perusal of the said dying declaration would 
' 
prove and establish that there is nothing incriminating in 
the said statement against the appellant and, therefore, 
the said dying declaration, which was exculpatory in na· 
G 
ture, so far as the prosecution is concerned is of no rel-
evance and would rather help the accused appellants. 
-4 
(Para 8] (278-B,C] 
1.4 The conviction cannot be based against the ap-
pellant No. 2 on the basis of the letter (Exbt. P-1) alone. In 
H 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 
.. .. 
A ' her statement PW 1 had, of course, brought in some alle-
gations· about the mother-in-law but only from that state-
meht it cannot be said that she had directly a·ny hana in 
the act of commission of suicide. So far as the evidence 
of PW 1 and PW 3 are concerned, there is only evidence 
-B 
to the extent· that at times the deceased was not treated 
well by the appellant. There is no direct evidence to es-
lo. 
tablish that the· appellant either aided or instigated· the 
deceased to commit suicide or -entered into an·y con-
spiracy to aid her in committing'suicide. [Paras·10, 13 and 
c 15] [279-B, 280-0,E, 281-A] 
. 
2.1 Section 113-A of Evidence Act gives a discretion 
to the court to raise such· a presumption as· provided un-
;.der the provision having regard, to au the other c

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