IMPORTANT POINTS
Keeping wife at home under care of parents cannot constitute cruelty u/s 498A, IPC.
Mere commission of suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage would not make presumption u/s 113A apply automatically.

JUDGMENT

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J. –

1. The appellant Mangat Ram, a member of SC community, married the deceased Seema, a member of the Aggarwal community on 13.7.1993 at Ambala. Few months after the marriage, on 15.9.1993, according to the prosecution, the appellant sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and set her on fire, having failed to meet the dowry demand. On hearing the hue and cry, neighbours assembled and took her to the Civil Hospital, Gohana and, later, she was shifted to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, where she died on 17.9.1993. The appellant, along with his parents and sister, were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A and 304-B IPC.

2. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offences, examined PWs 1 to 7 and also produced various documents. On the side of defence, DWs 1 to 5 were examined and the accused appellant got himself examined as DW6. After the evidence was closed, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), who denied all the incriminating statements made against him. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that an offence under Section 498-A IPC was made out against the appellant, but not against the other three accused persons.

The trial Court also found that no offence under Section 304-B IPC was made out against the accused persons, including the appellant. However, it was held that an offence under Section 306 IPC was made out against the appellant, though no charge was framed under that section. After holding the appellant guilty, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- , in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for six months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for two years.

3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997, which when came up for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court on 3.5.2007, the Court passed the following order: "Present: Mrs. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae. Heard Dismissed, reasons to follow."

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred SLP (Criminal) No. 7578 of 2007 which was later converted into Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2008. The criminal appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 25.1.2008 and this Court deprecated the practice of the High Court in disposing of the criminal appeals without recording reasons in support of its decision. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in State of Punjab and others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (1984) 1 SCC 596, State of Punjab and others v. Surinder Kumar and others (1992) 1 SCC 489 and Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another v. State of Gujarat and others (2004) 4 SCC 158, this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed the High Court to hear the appeal on merits.

5. The High Court then considered the criminal appeal and dismissed the same on merits vide its judgment dated 27.5.2008 confirming the conviction and sentence awarded against the accused by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred.

6. Mr. Satinder S. Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, took us elaborately through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and submitted that the judgment of the trial Court as well as the High Court is based on conjunctures, full of contradictions and surmises and there is no evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused. Learned counsel submitted that there was a complete misreading of the oral and documentary evidence and, at every stage, th