PARVEEN KUMARversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

                  [2024] 10 S.C.R. 54 : 2024 INSC 717

                           Parveen Kumar
                                   v.
                    The State of Himachal Pradesh
                (Criminal Appeal No(S). 1014-1015 of 2013)
                            23 September 2024
           [Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

                          Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose, if the High Court was justified in convicting and
       sentencing the husband u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC for subjecting the
       victim-wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide.

                                 Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A and 306 – Husband or relative
       of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Abetment
       of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption
       as to abetment of suicide by a married woman – Victim-
       wife committed suicide by consuming tablets of aluminum
       phosphide-insecticide within two years of marriage – FIR by
       the victim’s brother alleging that the husband had subjected
       the victim to cruelty and forced her to commit suicide – Trial
       court convicted and sentenced the husband for the offence
       u/s.498-A however, acquitted him for the offence u/s.306 –
       High Court upheld the order of conviction u/s.498A as also
       convicted and sentenced him u/s.306 – Challenge to:
       Held: Giving birth to a male child by the victim and filing of
       three cases during her life time against the husband-appellant,
       FIR u/ ss.498-A and 506; complaint u/s.107/151 CrPC and case
       u/s.125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and her child,
       not disputed – Fact of the deceased having committed suicide
       by consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide-insecticide, also
       duly proved by the prosecution – Courts below concurrently held
       the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.498-A by holding that the
       appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty – Appellant’s
       case that as per the suicide note, the suicide was committed by
       the deceased on account of her intolerable pain and illness and
       not due to the cruelty of the appellant, cannot be accepted –


* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                             55

           Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


     Suicidal note not duly exhibited for being admitted in evidence,
     as also the appellant had not even bothered to inform the parents
     of the deceased immediately after the incident smacked of his
     guilt – High Court rightly raised the presumption u/s.113A to
     hold that the suicide was abetted by the appellant – Prosecution
     by leading cogent evidence established that the deceased had
     committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of
     her marriage and that the husband had subjected her to cruelty
     as contemplated in s.498-A – Thus, no illegality or infirmity in the
     order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant for the
     offences u/ss.498-A and 306. [Paras 9-11]

                              Case Law Cited
     Hans Raj v. State of Haryana [2004] 2 SCR 676 : 2004 (12) SCC
     257; Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana [2024] 2 SCR 830 : 2024
     (3) SCC 573 – relied on.
                                 List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure,
     1973.
                              List of Keywords
     Subjecting wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide; Abetment
     of suicide; Presumption as to abetment of suicide by married
     woman; Consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide,insecticide;
     Commission of wilful conduct; Maintenance; Presumption u/s.113A
     of the Evidence Act.
                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1014-
     1015 of 2013
     From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2011 of the High Court of
     H.P. at Shimla in CRLA Nos. 97 and 325 of 2000
                         Appearances for Parties
     Ashok Tobria, M.S. Yadav, Rajesh Kumar Pandey, S.Y. Usmani,
     Rishi Kumar, Sahil Kaushik, Sachin Soni, Mayank Yadav, Pushkar
     Anand, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Sarthak Chiller, Rohit Lochav, Advs. for
     the Respondent.
56                                                         [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                 Judgment
      Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1.    Both the appeals arise out of the common Judgment and Order
      dated 16.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
      at Shimla in the Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2000 preferred by the
      appellant-Parveen Kumar and the Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2000
      preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh.
2.    The short facts as curled out from the record are that on 10.10.1992 the
      appellant had married Raksha Devi (the deceased). The said Raksha
      Devi gave birth to a male child from the loins of the appellant at her
      parental home on 18.12.1993. As per the case of the prosecution,
      the appellant used to beat his wife even when she was pregnant
      and therefore, she had gone away to her parental home and had got
      registered an FIR being No. 59 of 1993 for the offence under Section
      498-A of IPC on 12.09.1993 at the Police Station Ghumarwin. She also
      filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance
      from the appellant, and also filed another complaint under Section
      107/151 Cr.P.C. Somewhere in May 1994, the appellant brought back
      his wife to her matrimonial home. On 22.09.1994, the said Raksha Devi
      gave a statement in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in
      the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that she did not want
      to pursue the matter as she was living happily with the appellant.
      Similar statement was also allegedly given in the Court in respect of
      the complaint filed by her. However, on 26.09.1994 the wife of the
      appellant Raksha Devi consumed tablets of aluminum phosphide
      at about 1:45 a.m. She was admitted in the hospital for treatment,
      however could not survive and died at 5.00 a.m. on the same day.
3.    The information regarding her death was reduced to writing by the
      SHO in the daily diary register vide DDR No. 30. The SHO sent the
      body of the deceased to the hospital for carrying out the post-mortem.
      On 01.10.1994 the brother of the deceased, Sh. Madan Lal (PW-3)
      lodged an FIR being No. 97 of 1994 at the Police Station, Bhoranj
      alleging that the appellant had subjected his sister to cruelty and
      forced her to commit suicide. The Investigating Officer after carrying
      out the investigation submitted the chargesheet against the appellant
      for the offence under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. The Sessions
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         57

               Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


      Court, Hamirpur, H.P. after appreciating the evidence on record
      adduced by the prosecution as well as by the defence, convicted
      the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and
      sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
      years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with the default clause, however,
      acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC vide
      the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2000.
4.    Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order passed by the
      Sessions Court, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 97 of
      2000 against his conviction under Section 498-A IPC whereas the
      State of Himachal Pradesh preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 325
      of 2000 against the acquittal of the appellant from the offence under
      Section 306 of IPC before the High Court. The High Court vide the
      impugned Judgment and Order dismissed the appeal preferred by
      the appellant whereas allowed the appeal preferred by the State and
      convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
      He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
      five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default clause of the
      offence under Section 306 of IPC, while confirming the conviction
      and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court for the offence under
      Section 498-A of IPC.
5.    The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that out
      of the three cases filed by the deceased – Raksha Devi against the
      appellant, the complaint lodged under Section 107/151 of Cr.P.C.
      was dismissed by the concerned Court on 04.04.1994, and the other
      two cases filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and FIR No. 59/93 under
      Section 498-A IPC were settled between the parties as per the Order
      dated 22.09.1994 passed by the concerned Court. According to him
      the settlement between the parties could not be treated as admission
      of guilt, on the contrary after the settlement the deceased had come to
      her matrimonial home to stay with the appellant. He further submitted
      that there were no allegations of cruelty made between the period
      June 1993 till she committed suicide on 26.09.1994 and therefore
      no presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could
      be raised against the appellant. Placing reliance of the decision of
      this Court in Hans Raj Vs. State of Haryana1 and in case of Naresh


1    [2004] 2 SCR 676 : (2004) 12 SCC 257
58                                                          [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                             Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Kumar vs. State of Haryana2 he submitted that the conviction could
       not be based on conjectures and surmises.
6.     Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
       submitted that the appellant had tried to mislead the investigation
       by stating that the deceased had taken the tablets of aluminum
       phosphide as an insecticide by mistake. He further submitted that
       the death had happened within two years of the marriage and during
       the said two years the deceased had filed three complaints against
       the appellant alleging harassment and cruelty and therefore the
       presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act was rightly
       raised by the High Court for convicting the appellant under Section
       306 of IPC. According to him though the appellant had examined
       two defense witnesses, the testimony of both the witnesses did not
       inspire any confidence.
7.     For better appreciation of the submissions made by the learned
       counsel for the parties it would be beneficial to reproduce the
       provisions contained in Section 498-A and 306 IPC as also Section
       113A of the Indian Evidence Act. The said provisions read as under:
              “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
              subjecting her to cruelty. — Whoever, being the husband
              or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
              woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
              a term which may extend to three years and shall also
              be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this
              section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is
              of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
              suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
              health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b)
              harassment of the woman where such harassment is with
              a view to coercing her or any person related to her to
              meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
              security or is on account of failure by her or any person
              related to her to meet such demand.
              306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits
              suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,


2     [2024] 2 SCR 830 : (2024) 3 SCC 573
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         59

           Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


          shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
          for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
          be liable to fine.
          113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
          married woman. ––When the question is whether the
          commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted
          by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is
          shown that she had committed suicide within a period of
          seven years from the date of her marriage and that her
          husband or such relative of her husband had subjected
          her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to
          all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide
          had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of
          her husband.
          Explanation. –– For the purposes of this section, “cruelty”
          shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the
          Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
8.   From the explanation to Section 498-A IPC, it is discernible that
     the word ‘Cruelty’ means, (i) any wilful conduct which is of such a
     nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide (ii) any wilful
     conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to cause grave injury
     or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
     woman; or (iii) harassment of the woman with a view to coercing
     her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
     any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
     or any person related to her to meet such demand. So far as the
     instant case is concerned, as per the case of the prosecution the
     appellant had subjected the deceased to Cruelty i.e. had committed
     wilful conduct which was of such a nature, that drove her to commit
     suicide. Undoubtedly, the allegations of Cruelty as contemplated
     under Section 498A have to be established beyond reasonable
     doubt. Similarly, the charge under Section 306 also has to be proved
     by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent
     evidence that the appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide
     as contemplated in Section 107 of IPC. Of course, Section 113A
     of the Evidence Act permits the Court to raise a presumption as
     to abetment of suicide, if the Suicide was committed within seven
     years of the marriage and if it is proved that she was subjected to
60                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


      the “Cruelty” as explained in Section 498A by her husband or the
      relative of the husband. However, for the purpose of raising the
      presumption by the Court under Section 113A of the Evidence Act,
      the basic facts as contemplated in the said provision, need to be
      proved by the Prosecution.
9.    In the light of the above legal position, if the facts of the present
      case are appreciated, it appears that there are certain facts which
      have not been disputed, rather have been duly proved by the
      prosecution. Apart from the fact of the appellant had married the
      deceased on 10.10.1992, and the deceased had given birth to a
      male child from the loins of the appellant on 18.12.1993, the filing
      of three cases by the deceased during her life time against the
      appellant, i.e. (i) FIR No. 59/1993 dated 12.07.1993 under Section
      498-A and 506 IPC; (ii) complaint/Kalendra under Section 107/151
      of Cr.P.C. dated 01.07.1993 and (iii) case under Section 125 Cr.P.C
      in May, 1994 seeking maintenance for herself and her child, is also
      not disputed. The fact of the deceased having committed suicide
      by consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide, which is supposed
      to be an insecticide, is also duly proved by the prosecution. It is
      also pertinent to note that the trial Court and the High Court have
      concurrently held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section
      498-A IPC by holding that the appellant had subjected the deceased
      to cruelty.
10. Though it was sought to be submitted on behalf of the appellant
    that as per the suicide note Exhibit DF, the suicide was committed
    by the deceased on account of her intolerable pain and illness and
    not due to the Cruelty of the Appellant, the said contention deserves
    to be considered for rejection only. Apart from the fact that the
    said suicidal note does not appear to have been duly exhibited for
    being admitted in evidence, the fact that the appellant had not even
    bothered to inform the parents of the deceased immediately after the
    incident smacked of his guilt. The two defense witnesses claiming
    to be the neighbours of the appellant were examined to prove that
    the relationship between the appellant and his wife was cordial and
    not discordant, however they also do not inspire any confidence, in
    view of the undisputed and proved facts that the deceased had filed
    three cases against the appellant during her lifetime in respect of
    harassment and cruelty subjected to her by the Appellant.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                     61

              Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh


11. In that view of the matter, the High Court has rightly raised the
    presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act to hold that
    the suicide was abetted by the Appellant. There cannot be any
    disagreement to the proposition laid down by this Court in case of
    Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana (supra) and Naresh Kumar vs.
    State of Haryana (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
    Appellant, to submit that unlike Section 113B of the Evidence Act, a
    statutory presumption does not arise in Section 113A by operation
    of law merely on the proof of the circumstances enumerated in the
    said provision, and that Section 113A gives a discretion to the Court
    to raise a presumption. As discussed hereinabove the prosecution
    by leading cogent evidence had established that the deceased had
    committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her
    marriage and that the Appellant that is her husband had subjected
    her to cruelty as contemplated in Section 498-A of IPC. We therefore,
    do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed
    by the High Court convicting the Appellant for the offences under
    Section 498-A r/w Section 306 of IPC.
12. The Appeals being devoid of merits are dismissed. Dismissed
    accordingly.

     Result of the Case: Appeal dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain