HEERA LAL AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

                        [2017] 3 S.C.R. 259


                     HEERA LAL AND ANR.                                 A
                                 v.
                     STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 790of2017)
                          APRIL 24, 2017                                B
                [R. F. NARIMAN AND
           MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.I
       Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 306, 498A - Evidence Act, J872 -
s. J13A - Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married
woman - On facts, wife committed suicide within jive years of C
marriage - Dying declaration made to SDM that her in-laws
quarreling with her every day - Trial court held that offence uls.
498A not made out but convicted the in-laws u/s. 306 and sentenced
accordingly - Said order upheld by the High Court - On appeal,
held: Victim was not subjected to cruelty by in-laws - Jn-laws were 0
absolved of the charge of cruelty, the most basic ingredient for the
offence uls. 498A, the third ingredient for application of s. JJ3A is
missing - Presumption u/s. 113A would not apply since no link or
intention on the part of in-laws to assist the victim to commit suicide -
Jn the absence thereof, mere fact that there is a finding of harassment
would not lead to the conclusion that there is abetment of suicide - E
Thus, since in-laws were acquitted for crime u/s. 498A, abetment of
suicide uls. 306 not made out - Order passed by the High Court set
aside.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                                        F
      HELD: 1.1 Section 113A of the Evidence Act requires three
ingredients to be satisfied before it can be applied i.e., (i) that a
woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been
committed within a period of seven years from the date of her
marriage and (iii) the husband or his relatives who are charged
had subjected her to cruelty. [Para 611262-D-El                         G
      1.2 Having absolved the appellants of the charge of cruelty,
which is the most basic ingredient for the offence made out under
Section 498A, the third ingredient for application of Section 113A
is missing, namely, that the relatives i.e., the mother-in-law and
                                                                        H
                                259
260           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A father-in-law who are charged under Section 306 had subjected
  the victim to cruelty. No doubt, in the facts of this case, it has
  been concurrently found that the in-laws did harass her, but
  harassment is something of a lesser degree than cruelty. Also,
  the facts, taken as a whole, that assuming the presumption under
B Section 113A would apply, it has been fully rebutted, for the reason
  that there is no link or intention on the part of the in-laws to
  assist the victim to commit suicide. In the absence of this vital
  link, the mere fact that there is a finding of harassment would not
  lead to the conclusion that there is "abetment of suicide". On
  facts, thus, especially in view of the fact that the appellants have
C been acquitted for the crime under Section 498 A of the Code,
  abetment of suicide under Section 306 is not made out. The
  impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. (Paras 8-
  11 ][263-F-H; 264-A-CI
           Ramesh Kumar VS. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 sec
D          618 : [2001) 4 Suppl. SCR 247 - referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
            [20011 4 Suppl. SCR 247          referred to     Para 7
        CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
 E 790of2017.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2016 of the High Court
      of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in CRLA No. 260 of 2004.
            Ajay Chaudhary, Paramvir Singh, Viresh Chaudhary, Pradeep
      Yadav, Ms. Manju Jetley, Advs. for t~e Appellants.
 F
            K. L. Janjani, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Ms. Varsha Rana, Ms. Ruchi
      Kohli, Advs. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by
            R. F. NARIMAN, J. I. Leave granted.
 G        2. In the present case, an F.l.R. dated 28'h March, 2002 was
   lodged in which it was stated that the father-in-law and mother-in-law
   of the lady who committed suicide harassed her for at least five years
   and this harassment, therefore, led to offences being committed under
   Sections 498A and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial
 H Court relied upon the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, who were neighbours,
      HEERA LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                              261
                  [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

who attested to the fact that there was harassment meted by the in-laws A
to the dead lady. Medical evidence also shows that there were 90%
bums as the lady had poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire.
Most importantly, according to both the Trial Court and the High Court,
a dying declaration was made before PW 9 who was a Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, which reads as follows:-
                                                                            B
      "ThePW-9, Himmat Singh has stated that as on 28.03.02, he was
      working as SDM and on that day he had gone to the hospital to
      record the statement of the deceased. At that time Dr. Verma
      was the duty doctor and he has stated that Lalita was in a state of
      fitness to record her statement. When I asked Lalita she had
      told that she was sleeping and her in~laws were quarrelling with c
      her every day. Today also they quarrelled with me. They asked
      me to leave the house. My husband is not responsible for anything.
      He resides in Kuwait. He has come here now. I am residing
      separately from my in-laws. Today they had come with their
       luggage and said that they have come to stay with her. I told them D
       that I am not in good relations with them and therefore I cannot
       reside with them. They told, we will stay here and you get lost.
       Then I got angry and went inside the kitchen and poured kerosene
       from the stove and set myself on fire. My father-in-law was looking
       at me but did not try to stop me. My husband tried to save me. My
       in-laws were demanding dowry from me. I did not have any E
       quarrels with my husband. My signatures are there on the statement
       recorded by me. Lalita's thumb impression is there at point X.
       During the cross examination by the Ld. Counsel the witness stated
        that the statement recorded by him is at Ex. P-5 and at point X
        the thumb impression ofLalita is there. At the time of recording F
        the statement no one from her parent's side was present and the
        in-laws of the deceased were turned out of the room at the time
        of recording the statement. Lalita's husband Omprakash was
        present at the time of Lalita setting herself on fire and at the time
        of putting off the flames."
                                                                             G
        3. On this evidence, the Trial Court held that the offence under
 Section 498A was not made out but convicted the two appellants before
 us under Section 306 and sentenced them to imprisonment for three
 years. In an appeal filed by them before the High Court, the High Court,
 relying upon the aforesaid dying declaration, dismissed the appeal.
                                                                             H
262             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A            4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before us that
      the State did not appeal against their acquittal under Section 498A and,
      that therefore, the fact that the offence under Section 498A has not
      been made out is final. This has a vital bearing on the offence under
      Section 306 as one of the ingredients of this offence is that cruelty should
      have been meted out by the offenders. He also argued that based on the
B
      dying declaration which has been given prime importance, this is not a
      case of abetment as there is no evidence of any intention to help the
      deceased to commit suicide.
        5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State
  of Rajasthan supported the impugned Judgment. According to him, it is
c concurrently held, based on the evidence of the case as well as the
  dying declaration, that abetment of suicide is made out on the facts of
  the case. Learned counsel also heavily relied upon the presumption
  contained in Section l 13A of the Evidence Act inasmuch as death has
  been caused within seven years of the marriage; and this presumption,'
D not having been rebutted, did not require any inte1ference at our end.
          6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
  having gone through the evidence, we are of the opinion that Section
  l l 3A of the Indian Evidence Act requires three ingredients to be satisfied
  before it can be applied i.e., (i) that a woman has committed suicide, (ii)
E such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from
  th.e date of her marriage and (iii) the husband or his relatives who are
  charged had subjected her to cruelty.
             7. This Court in an illuminating Judgment in Ramesh Kumar vs.
      State ofChhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 has stated the law as follows:-
F           "This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second)
            Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a
            social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married
            women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the
            husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was u~ually
G           available within the four comers of the matrimonial home and
            hence was not available to anyone outside the occupf!,nts of the,
            house. However, still it cannot be lost sight oft4at the presumption
            is intended to operate against the accused in the field of crimin.al
            law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof
            must exist. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract
H
      HEERA LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                               263
                  [R. F. NARlMAN, J.]

      applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman A
      has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within
      a period of seven years from the date of her man-iage, (iii) the
      husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to
      cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid
      circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been B
      abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband.
      Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the
      presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the
      employment of expression "may presume" suggests. Secondly,
      the existence and availability of the abovesaid three circumstances
      shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; C
      before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to
      have regard to "all the other circumstances of the case". A
      consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may
      strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the
      court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression -
      "the other circumstances of the case" used in Section 113-A D
      suggests the need to reach a cause-and-effect relationship
      between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a
       presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an
       irrebuttable one. ln spite of a presumption having been raised the
       evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances E
       otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The
       phrase "may presume" used in Section 113-A is defined in Section
      4 of the Evidence Act, which says - "Whenever it is provided by
       this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard
       such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call
       for proof of it."                                                   F

       8. We find that having absolved the appellants of the charge of
cruelty, which is the most basic ingredient for the offence made out
under Section 498A, the third ingredient for application of Section l l 3A
is missing, namely, that the relatives i.e., the mother-in-law and father-
in-law who are charged under Section 306 had subjected the victim to         G
cruelty. No doubt, in the facts of this case, it has been concurrently
found that the in-laws did harass her, but harassment is something of a
lesser degree than cruelty. Also, we find on the facts, taken as a whole,
that assuming the presumption under Section 113A would apply, it has
                                                                             H
264                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A been fully rebutted, for the reason that there is no link or intention on
  the part of the in-laws to assist the victim to commit suicide.
            9. In the absence of this vital link, the mere fact that there is a
      finding of harassment would not lead to the conclusion that there is
      "abetment of suicide".
B            10. On the facts, therefore, we find, especially in view of the fact
      that the appellants have been acquitted for the crime under Section 498
      A of the Code, that abetment of suicide under Section 306 is not made
      out.
         11. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned Judgment of
C the High Court. If incarcerated, the appellants shall be released forthwith.
             -12. The appeal is allowed in the afore-stated terms.


      Nidhi Jain                                                     Appeal allowed.