STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus SRI ORILAL JAISWAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 23-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
A 
v. 
SRI ORILAL JAISWAL AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 
B 
( K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.) 
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 306, read with Section 34, Section 
498-A read with Section 34-Husband and mother-in-law of newly young 
married girl subjecting her to cruelty-Suicide by bride within a year of mar-
C 
riage-Held, deceased has been subjected to humiliation and physical as well 
as mental torture throughout-Acts of accused were quite likely to destroy 
nonnal frame of mind of deceased and to drive her to frustration and mental 
agony and to end her life by committing suicide-Both accused convicted of 
offence under section 498A benefit of doubt given under Section 306. 
Explanation to Section 4~8-A-!'Cruelty"-Wilful conduct of husband 
and mother-in-law driving bride to commit suicide-Degree of sensivity ex-
amined-Held, victim jilted from nonnal frame of mind due to cruelty meted 
out to her-Acts of accused covered under expression "Cruelty". 
Criminal Trial-Suicide by a young married girl within a year of her 
marriage-Charge of cruelty-Standard of proof-Depends upon the facts and 
circumstances of the case, quality of evidence adduced, materials placed on 
record. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 113-A--Presumption as to abetment 
of suicide by a ma"ied woman-Held : requirement of proof beyond 
reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after introduction of Section 
498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 113- A. 
D 
E 
F 
Respondents No. 1 and 2 were charged with the offences under G 
Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 498-A read with Section 
34 I.P.C. The prosecution's case was that Respondent No. l's wife, who was 
on twenty years' age was treated cruelly and tortured both mentally and 
physically by the two Respondents, viz., her husband and mother-in-law, 
as a. result of which she committed suicide, within a year of her marriage. H 
461 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Sessions Judge covicted both the respondents of the offences 
charge, and sentenced each of them to 5 year's rigorous imprffiionment 
and fine of Rs. 1,080 and 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 
1,000 on both the counts respectively. On appeal by the respondents, the 
High Court enumerated a number of circumstances, namely: there was no 
B satisfactory explanation of delay in lodging the F .I.R., there was no dying 
declaration or suicidal note, there was no letter during the subsistence of 
marriage, there was no letter addressed to the mother who used to live 
outside the city most of the time, there was no complaint either by the 
father or father-in-law of the victim, there was no evidence regarding the 
c 
injuries received by the deceased or the mat-treatment, no specific date 
was given when the deceased had allegedly told her mother about the 
demand for dowery or the mat-treatment and no specific date or time was 
given for making such demand; although the adult members of the family 
of the deceased consisting of four brothers, sisters and brothers-in-law and 
father were the residents of Calcutta, the deceased had never complained 
D anything to them, and held that these circumstances gave rise to a great 
doubt against the prosecution's story and that the prosecution had failed 
to establish the charges against the respondents and cruelty as 
enumerated in Section 498-A had not been established, that the presump· 
tion under Section 113A of the India Evidence Act, could not be pressed 
E 
in to service, and accordingly, Section 306 l.P.C. also could not be invoked, 
and that since there was no independent evidence ofinducement to commit 
suicide either by the mother-in-law or by the husband of the deceased, the 
conviction of the accused persons was unwarranted. Accordingly, it set 
aside the conviction and sentences and passed an order of acquittal in 
p 
favour of both the ·accused. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant· 
State that the High Court took a very unreasonable view completely. 
overlooking the clinching evidence about the complicity of both the accused 
in the offences charged against them, that the High Court erred in not 
G appreciating the factors so far as timely lodging of the F .I.R. was con-
cerned, and it failed to consider evidence indicating that both the accused, 
the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, had treated her with 
cruelty almost from the very beginning of her married

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