Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Arvind Kumar under s.306 IPC and s.4 Dowry Prohibition Act, but set aside the conviction of Prem Bai due to lack of evidence, and held that the presumption under Evidence Act s.113A is attracted.

Summary

Arvind Kumar married Sadhna and, along with his mother Prem Bai, repeatedly demanded additional dowry items. Sadhna, unable to meet these demands, was allegedly harassed and tortured, leading her to set herself on fire and die within 1.5 months of marriage. Both were convicted under IPC s.306 (abetment of suicide) and Dowry Prohibition Act s.4. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the presumption under Evidence Act s.113A was attracted and applicable prospectively. It found reliable, cogent evidence establishing Arvind Kumar's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and upheld his conviction. However, the Court found no direct or circumstantial evidence linking Prem Bai to the abetment or harassment, and set aside her conviction. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed: Arvind Kumar's conviction was maintained, while Prem Bai's was overturned.

Issues considered

Whether Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872, is applicable prospectively to the facts of the case.
Whether the prosecution proved the charge of abetment of suicide against the mother-in-law (Prem Bai) under IPC s.306 and Dowry Prohibition Act s.4.
Whether the prosecution proved the charge of abetment of suicide against the husband (Arvind Kumar) under IPC s.306 and Dowry Prohibition Act s.4.

Legislation cited

Subjects

abetment of suicidedowry harassmentSection 113A presumptionDowry Prohibition Actevidence evaluationconviction overturnself-immolation

Judgment

A ARVIND KUMAR AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JULY 24, 2007

B [R.V. RA VEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

s. 306-Abetment to suicide-Bride, owing to harassment and torture
C for not bringing dowry, committing suicide. by setti11g herself ablaze-
Conviction of husband and mother-in-law uls 306 /PC ands. 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act-Held, as regards mother-in-law, there is no direct or
circumstantial evidence to prove charges against her-Her conviction and
sentence set aside-However, there is reliable, cogent and trustworthy
D evidence against the husband to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt-Findings recorded by trial court and affirmed by High Court do not
suffer from any illegality, manifest error or perversity, and call for no
interference-Conviction and sentence of seven years RI maintained-Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961-s. 4-Evidence Act, 1872-s. IJ3A.

E Evidence Act, 1872:

s. 113-A-Applicability of-Plea that bride committed suicide prior to
insertion of the section in the Act-Held: The section does not create any new
offence or make it punishable-Presumption contemplated uls 113-A is clearly
attracted in the facts of the case and accused has not led any evidence to
F rebut the said presumption-Penal Code, 1860-s. 306-DoWIJ' Prohibition
Act, 1961-s. 4.

The appellants-A-land A-2, were prosecuted for offences punishable
u/s. 306 ands. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The prosecution case
G was that A-1 married the daughter of PW-9. At the time of 'vidai' A-1 raised
demand of dowry articles, and thereafter constantly harassed and tortured
the bride for not bringing sufficient dowry, so much so that within 2 and a
quarter months of the marriage, the br.ide poured kerosene on her person
and set herself afire, and died of 100% burn injuries. The trial court convicted
A-1 and his mother A-2 of the offences charged and imposed on each of them
H 474

'
'
(
J
AR VIND KUMAR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 475

7 years RI u/s 306 IPC and 6 months RI u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A .
- The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. Aggrieved, the
accused filed the instant appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, A-2 died.

It was contended for the appellants that there was no presumption
available u/s 113 of the Evidence Act that the bride committed suicide owing
to harassment and torture by the accused. He submitted that the incident B
occurred on 2.7.1982 ands. 113-A would not have retrospective operation.
On merits, it was contended that the prosecution failed to prove the charges
against the accused by leading satisfactory, believable and convincing evidence.

Allowing the appeal qua A-2 and dismissing it as regards A-1, the Court
c
HELD: I. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence led by the
prosecution to prove the charges against A-2. The evindence brought on record
against her is not cogent and consistent to establish that she abetted the
offence of suicide committed by the bride or that she tortured or harassed
her for not bringing adequate dowry articles at the time of marriage or
thereafter before the bride committed suicide. Therefore, the conviction D
recorded and the sentence imposed upon deceased A-2 by the trial court and
confirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and, accordingly, the
judgment of the High Court to that extent stands set aside.
(Para 8) (478-G; 479-A)

2.1. So far as the conviction of A-1 is concerned, there is reliable, cogent E
and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. The testimonies of P. Ws. 5 and 9, the brother and the father,
respectively, of the deceased and PW-10, their landlord, who is an independent
witness, are consistent, reliable and trustworthy to prove that it was A-1 who
constantly harassed, humiliated and tortured his wife for bringing insufficient F
dowry. The bride was forced to commit suicide becasue of the cruel behaviour
of the accused. The extent of burn injuries found on the body of the deceased
would go to show that no effort whatsoever was made by the accused to save
his wife from committing suicide though he was present in the house ~hen
the incident took place. He has not even bothered to call the doctor.
[Paras 9 and 10) [479-C; 480-8, DJ G
2.2. On scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it is found that the
counduct of the accused-husband was apathetic which is an additional
circumstance in the link of the ocular version of PWs. 5, 9 and 10 who have
supported the prosecution case in its entirety. The finding recorded by the
trial court and accepted by the High Court does not suffer from any illegality, H
/

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A manifest error or perversity, nor have the Courts overlooked or wrongly
discarded any vital piece of evidence appearing against the accused. Therefore,
the findings of fact as recorded by the courts below do not call for inteference.
The conviction recorded and the sentence imposed upon A-1 by the trial court
and confirmed by the High Court are maintained.
(Paras 10 and 14) (480-E, F; 481-E]
B
3. It cannot be said that the presumption enumerated under Section 113A
of the Evidence Act is not attracted in the present case. It is well-settled law
that presumption with respect to the procedural matters in normally to be
construed as prospective. Section 113A does not create any new offence or
C make it punishable. It only deals with presumption which the Court may draw
in particular facts situation. In view of the settled position in law, the
presumption contemplated under Section l 13A is clearly attracted in the facts
of the present ca~e and the accused has not led any evindence to rebut the
said presumption. (Paras 11 and 12] (480-G, H; 481-A-D)

.D Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, AIR (1990) SC 2009, relied on.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 452 of
2001.

From the Judgment & Order dated 23.06.2000 of the High Court of
E Madhya Prad.esh at Jabalpur in Crimial Appeal No. 817 of 1989.

Naveen Sharma and B.K. Satija for the Appellant.

Govind Goel, C.D. Singh, Merusagar Samantaray, Vairagya Vardhan and
Sunny Choudhary for the Respondent.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. I. Appellants have filed this appeal
against the judgment dated the 23rd June, 2000 passed by a learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, confirming the
G conviction and sentence of 7 years' R.I. imposed upon each of the appellants
in respect of offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
[for short "IPC"] and 6 months R.I., each under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default stipulation for
6 months R.I., awarded by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge,
/
District Sagar dated 29th August, 1989 in Criminal Case No. 517/82.
'H
ARVINDKUMAR•·.STATEOFMADHYAPRADESH[LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.) 477

2. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the appellants, are as follows:- A
3. Arvind Kumar-accused No. I is the son of Prem Bai @ Gulabrani-
accused No.2. On April 26, 1982 Arvind Kumar married Sadhna, daughter of
Bhag Chand (P.W.9) and sister of Sudarshan Kumar Jain (P.W. 5). After the
marriage of Sadhna, the accused started harassing and humiliating her for not
bringing adequate dowry articles. Prosecution alleged that on 29th June, 1982 B
both the accused demanded one table fan, one automatic watch and one
almirah from Sadhna. The demand of the articles was again repeated on' 2nd
July, 1982. Sadhna was unable to satisfy the persistent demand of the
accused. She was constantly tortured and harassed by the accused and as
a result thereof Sadhna committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her C
person and setting her body on fire on 2nd July, 1982. The incident of suicide
had taken place after one month and seven days of the marriage of the
deceased Sadhna with Arvind Kumar-accused. On 3rd July, 1982, the crime
.. , report (Ex. P-10) of the death ofSadhna was reported by Santosh Kumar (P.W.
7), brother of Arvind Kumar -accused, to the Police at Check Post Barha,
Police Station Banda. After receiving the report and preparing First Information D
Report, P.W. 12 Rameshwar Prasad, Head Constable went to the place of
incident and held the necessary Panchnama like seizure of certain articles
found near the scene of offence, got the spot map (Ex. P-11) prepared from
Ram Sewak Khare, Patwari. The dead body of Sadhna was sent for post
mortem to District Hospital, Khargaon. After recording the statements of the E
material witnesses and after receipt of post mortem report Ex. P-16 of Dr. J.C.
Jain, Medical Officer, District Hospital Khargaon (P.W. 14) and letter (Ex. P-
14) of the District Magistrate granting sanction of prosecution of the accused
for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, charge
sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Section 306
lPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. F
4. The Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its
version. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the accused denied their involvement in the crime. Arvind
Kumar- accused stated that Sadhna committed suicide on her own by pouring
kerosene oil on her body because she was mentally disturbed. He stated that G
he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Smt. Prem
Bai-accused stated that she used to treat her daughter-in-law (Sadhna) very
affectionately and she had never demanded any dowry article from the brother
or the father of the deceased. The accused examined Mohanlal Pathak (D.W.
I) and Chandra Kumar (D.W. 2) in their defence. Both these witnesses stated H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A that Sadhna was a simple girl but was mentally disturbed.
5. Initially both the accused were acquitted on 27th September, 1983 by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar. The appeal filed by the State against
the acquittal order came to be allowed by the High Court. The High Court
directed the Trial Court to record further evidence in the case. The Trial Court
B after considering the evidence on record, recorded conviction and awarded
sentence as aforesaid. The High Court on reappraisal and re-appreciation of
the entire evidence on record con.finned the conviction and sentence imposed
upon the accused. Hence this appeal by the accused persons.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused challenged the
C judgment of the High Court inter alia contending that admittedly, Sadhna died
within one and a half month of the marriage, but there is no presumption
available under Section l l 3A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that Sadhna
deceased committed suicide owing to harassment or torture by the accused.
He submitted that provisions of Section l l 3A of the Indian Evidence Act as
D inserted by Act No. 43/1983 [Criminal Law Second Amendment, I.983] is not
retrospective in operation. He further submitted that the prosecution has
failed to prove the charges agarnst the accused by leading satisfactory,
believable and convincing evidence and the Trial Court as well as the High
Court have recorded the findings of guilt of the accused on surmises and
conjecture. Lastly, it was submitted that the deceased committed s11icide on
E her own by pouring kerosene oil on her b~y due to her mental ailment.

7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the
prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused persons and no
exceptions can be·taken to the reasons indicated by the Trial Court in the
F well-reasoned judgment. The evidence has also been analysed in great detail
by the High Court and, therefore, no question of any interference is called
for with the conviction recorded in the impugned judgment of the High Court.

8. Before we proceed to consider the respective contentions of _the
learned counsel for the parties, we, at this stage, may record that during the
G pendency of the appeal before this Court, Smt. Prem Bai - accused No.2 has
died. We have analysed the entire evidence and other material on record and
find that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution
to prove the charges against deceased Smt. Prem Bai. The evidence brought·
on record against accused Smt. Prem Bai is not cogent and consistent to
establish that Prem Bai had abetted the commission of the offence of suicide
H
ARVINDKUMAR,..STATEOFMADHYAPRADESH[LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.) 479

committed by deceased Sadhna or Prem Bai accused had tortured or harassed A
- - her daughter in Jaw - Sadhna for not bringing adequate dowry articles at the
time of marriage or thereafter before Sadhna committed suicide. Therefore, the
conviction recorded and the sentence imposed upon deceased Prem Bai by
the Trial Court and confinned by the High Court cannot be sustained and,
accordingly, the judgment of the High Court to that extent stands set aside. B
Deceased Smt. Prem Bai shall stand acquitted of the offences under Section
306 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Fine, if any, realised from
deceased Smt. Prem Bai shall be refunded to her legal ~eirs.

9. So far the conviction of Arvind Kumar is concerned, we find from
scrutiny of the evidence placed on record that there is reliable, cogent and C
trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. Sudarshan Kumar Jain (P. W. 5) brother of the deceased
Sadhna deposed that the marriage of his sister· was settled with Arvind Kumar
- accused in the year 1982 and in all a sum of Rs. 18,000 - 19,000/- was spent
at the tim_e of marriage ceremony, but at the time of vidaai, Arvind Kumar-
accused. raised additional demand of dowry articles, namely, one fan, one D
automatic watch and one -iron a/mirah which they were not able to meet on
that occasion. He stated that they assured the accused that after making
some arrangement for money, they would later o.n give the demanded articles.
However, one radio was given at the time of marriage. The father and
grandfather of Arvind-accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles E
given to Sadhna at the time of her marriage and she was humi'liated and
harassed by the family members _o f Arvind and she was pressurized to bring
additional dowry articles from her parents'. house. . He also stated that
considering the greed of the accused, her parents could arrange for one watch
and one fan, but the accused refused to accept those articles and he demanded
valuable watch and fan of bigger size. He deposed that his sister was not F
properly treated by the accused during her stay with him. He denied the
suggestion of the defence that his sister was suffering from mental ailment.
Bhag Chand (P.W. 9) father of the deceased corroborated the testimony of
P.W. Sudershan Kumar and further stated that he had given sufficient dowry.
articles to his daughter Sadhna at the time o.f her marriage and additional G
articles demanded by the accused at the time of vidaai of his daughter were
offered to him but the accused refused to accept those articles as they were
not found to his liking and standard. Pritam (P. W. IO) is the landlord of P. W.
9. He is an independent witness. He deposed that at the time of vidaai of
Sadhna after marriage, her parents offered one watch and one fan to Arvind
accused, who declined to accept the same as those were not of higher value H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A and of good make. He stated that he came to know from P. W. 5 that the
accused used to beat Sadhna.

I 0. From the narration of the facts and evidence on record, it is not in
dispute that Sadhna committed suicide and died due to injuries as certified
by P.W. 14 Dr. J.C. Jain in his post mortem report (Ex. P-16). The testimony
B of P.Ws. 5, 9 and 10 are consistent, reliable and trustworthy to prove that it
was Arvind-accused who constantly harassed, humiliated and tortured his
wife Sadhna for bringing insufficient dowry articles. He persistently made
demand of sophisticated watch, fan and iron almirah. Sadhna was forced to
commit suicide because of the cruel behaviour of the accused. The defence
C of the accused that Sadhna was suffering from mental ailment is belied by
P.W. 2 Sushila Bai, who was a teacher in Naveen School, Banda where Sadhna
was studying. P. W. 2 Sushi la Bai stated that the behaviour of Sadhna during
her student life in the school was proper and normal. P.W. 14 Dr. J.C. Jain
was examined by the Trial Court after remand of the case by the High Court.
His deposition is that there were 100 per cent bum marks on the body of
D deceased Sadhna. Sadhna had already died before Dr. Shrivastav could reach
at the house of the accused. The extent of burn injuries found on the body
of the deceased would go to show that no effort whatsoever was made by
the accused to save his wife from committing suicide though he was present
in the house when such incident took place. He has not even bothered to
E call the doctor and it was his elder brother P.W. 7 Santosh Kumar, who came
from another house and immediately contacted Dr. Shrivastav and infonned
him about the precarious condition of Sadhna. On scrutiny of the entire
evidence on record, we are of the view that the conduct of the accused-
husband was apathetic, which is an additional circumstance in the link of the
ocular version of PWs.5, 9 and I 0 who have supported the prosecuti~n case
F in its entirety. The evaluation of the finding recorded by the learned Trial
Court and accepted by the High Court does not suffer from any illegality,
manifest error or perversity, nor have the Courts overlooked or wrongly
discarded any vital piece of evidence appearing against the accused. Therefore,
we hold that the findings of fact as recorded by the courts below do n_ot call
G for any interference in this appeal.

11. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the
presumption enumerated under Section I 13A of the Indian Evi.dence Act is .
not attracted in the present case does not meritacceptance. It is well-settled
law that presumption with respect to the procedural matters is nonnally to be
H construed as prospective. Section l l 3A does not create any new offence or
ARVINDKUMAR\•. STATEOFMADHYAPRADESH(LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J .} 481

make it punishable. It only deals with presumption which the Court may draw A
in particular facts situation. This Court in Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh,
reported in AIR (l 990) SC 2009 held in para 36 as under:-

"36. The provisions of the said Section do not create any new offence
and as such it does not c~eate any substantial right but it is merely
a matter of procedure of evidence and as such it is retrospective and B .
will be applicable to this case. It is profitable to refer in the connection
to Halsbury's Laws of England, (Fourth Edition), Volume 44 page 570
wherein it has been stated that

The general rule is that all statutes, other than those which are
merely declaratory or which relate only to matters or procedure or of C
evidence, are prima facie prospective and retrospective effect are not
to be given to them unless, by express words or necessary implication,
it appears that this was the intention of the legislature .... "

12. In view of the above settled position, the presumption contemplated
under Section I I 3A is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case and D
the accused has not led any evidence to rebut the said presumption.

13. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the parties.

14. In the result, the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed
upon Arvind Kumar-accused No. I by the Trial Court and confinned by the E
High Court are maintained. Arvind Kumar-accused No. I is on bail. He is
directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith and to suffer the remaining
period of sentence. The appeal of Arvind Kumar is, accordingly, dismissed.
The conviction and sentence of second accused is, however, set aside. Bail/
surety bonds in respect of Smt. Prem Bai shall stand discharged. F
RP. Appeal of Appellant No. 1 dismissed
and Appellant No. 2 allowed.