LexRAM PYAREY versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 484 : 2025 INSC 71 Ram Pyarey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015) 09 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Correctness of the order of conviction against the brother-in-law for the offences punishable u/ss.306, 498-A IPC and s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in the absence of any cogent evidence. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married women – Invocation of s.113A – When – Deceased died on account of severe burn injuries, by setting herself on fire – Order of conviction and sentence of the appellant-brother-in-law u/ss.306 and 498 IPC and s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, acquitted for the offence punishable u/s.304B IPC – Correctness: Held: When the courts below want to apply s.113A, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards cruelty and harassment – In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightway invoke s.113A and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide – No evidence on the basis of which it could be said that the brother- in-law abetted the commission of suicide – Judgment and order of conviction passed by courts below set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 498-A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – s.4. [Paras 11, 13, 14] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence Act, 1872. List of Keywords Abetment to suicide; Presumption as to dowry death; Presumption as to abetment to suicide; Cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment. [2025] 1 S.C.R. 485 Ram Pyarey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CRLA No. 401 of 1993 Appearances for Parties Bharat Bhushan, Keshav Bansal, Advs. for the Appellant. K. Parmeshwar, Sr. Adv/A.A.G., Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, Ms. Ruchil Raj, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 6th August, 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 1993 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and three other co-accused and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased. The deceased was married to one Ram Sajeevan. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that there was harassment at the end of the husband, in-laws and the appellant (Jeth) herein to the deceased. 4. The deceased doused herself with kerosene and set herself on fire on 27-09-1990. She died on account of severe burn injuries. The father of the deceased lodged a First Information Report with the Ajgain Police Station, District Unnao on the very same day. The gist of the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased reads thus:- 486 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports “To, SHO, Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao: Sir, It is respectfully submitted that the complainant Shiv Prasad Sahu, S/o. Laxman Sahu is resident of Village Bhakat, P.S. Kotwali, District Unnao. That the father in law Lal Bahadur., S/o. Jugnu, Village Sambhar Kheda, Majra Nana Tikur, P.S. Ajgain, Distt. Unnao took my daughter Kusum with him on 25.09.1990. That in the intervening night of 26.09.1990 and 27.09.1990 my daughter was killed by burning by her in-laws. Before this they were demanding the buffalo and gold chain in dowry after marriage. And told my daughter Kusum Devi if you will not give the dowry then we will kill you. They threatened her. On that I did not send her to her matrimonial house for one year and on 25.09.1990 my daughter was went to her matrimonial house alongwith her father in law Lal Bahadur, Son of Jugnu. They said that she is our responsibility. However, in the intervening night of 26.09.1990 and 27.09.1990 at about 2.00 A.M. Lal Bahadur, S/o. Jugnu,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.