Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Ram Pyarey – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1408 of 2015
Decided On : 09-01-2025
Court: Supreme Court of India (J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.)
Date: 09-01-2025
Parties: Ram Pyarey (Appellant, brother-in-law of deceased) v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent)
Trial History: Trial court convicted under IPC §§ 306, 498, 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act § 4 (acquitted under IPC § 304B); High Court (Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, 06-08-2013) affirmed conviction. (!) (!)
Facts: Deceased (Kusum Devi), married to Ram Sajeevan (son of appellant's father), visited matrimonial home on 25-09-1990 with father-in-law. On 27-09-1990, she self-immolated (died from burns). Father filed FIR alleging dowry demands (buffalo, gold chain) and murder by burning by husband, parents-in-law, and appellant (jeth). Investigation led to charges against four accused. (!) (!) (!)
Issues: Whether sufficient evidence existed to convict appellant of abetting suicide (IPC § 306) and dowry harassment (IPC §§ 498, 498A; Dowry Act §§ 3/4), invoking presumption under Evidence Act § 113B. (!)
Prosecution Case: Harassment by in-laws including appellant for dowry, leading to suicide. FIR named appellant in alleged murder by kerosene. (!) (!)
Court's Findings: No cogent evidence of appellant's harassment or abetment. Trial court acquitted all on dowry death (§ 304B) but convicted on lesser charges; evidence insufficient for § 306 conviction against brother-in-law. Other accused deceased or served sentence (husband did not appeal). Oral evidence lacked basis for appellant's role. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Key Legal Analysis: - Distinction in Presumptions: Evidence Act § 113A (abetment of suicide) permits presumption ("may presume") if cruelty under IPC § 498A shown within 7 years of marriage. § 113B (dowry death) mandates presumption ("shall presume") only with cogent evidence of cruelty/harassment for dowry soon before death. For § 306/§ 113B, harassment must be proven first; cannot invoke presumption without it. No such evidence here. (!) (!)
Ratio Decidendi: Presumption under Evidence Act § 113B cannot be invoked for abetment of suicide without cogent evidence of harassment. Mere suicide within 7 years + family relation insufficient absent proof of cruelty/abetment. (!)
Decision: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside. Appellant (on bail) discharged. (!) (!)
ORDER :
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 6th August, 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 1993 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and three other co-accused and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased. The deceased was married to one Ram Sajeevan.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that there was harassment at the end of the husband, in-laws and the appellant (Jeth) herein to the deceased.
4. The deceased doused herself with kerosene and set herself on fire on 27-09-1990. She died on account of severe burn injuries. The father of the deceased lodged a First Information Report with the Ajgain Police Station, District Unnao on the very same day. The gist of the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased reads thus:-
| “To, SHO, Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao: |
| Sir, |
| It is respectfully submitted that the complainant Shiv Prasad Sahu, S/o. Laxman Sahu is resident of Village Bhakat, P.S. Kotwali, District Unnao. That the father in law Lal Bahadur., S/o. Jugnu, Village Sambhar Kheda, Majra Nana Tikur, P.S. Ajgain, Distt. Unnao took my daughter Kusum with him on 25.09.1990. That in the intervening night of 26.09.1990 and 27.09.1990 my daughter was killed by burning by her in-laws. Before this they were demanding the buffalo and gold chain in dowry after marriage. And told my daughter Kusum Devi if you will not give the dowry then we will kill you. They threatened her. On that I did not send her to her matrimonial house for one year and on 25.09.1990 my daughter was went to her matrimonial house alongwith her father in law Lal Bahadur, Son of Jugnu. They said that she is our responsibility. However, in the intervening night of 26.09.1990 and 27.09.1990 at about 2.00 A.M. Lal Bahadur, S/o. Jugnu, Ram Sajeevan, S/o. Lal Bahadur, Ram Pyare, S/o. Lal Bahadur, Sonawati, W/o. Lal Bahadur killed my daughter Kusum Devi by burning after pouring kerosene oil on her. |
| The complaint of the complainant is against all the four accused. Action may kindly be taken under law after reporting the case. Will be highly greatful. |
| Written by Nand Kishore Sahu, S/o. Ram Nath, village Rajepur, P.S. and P.O. Marvi, Distt. Unnao. |
| Complainant Shiv Prasad Sahu S/o. Laxman Sahu R/o. Village Bakhat, Distt. Unnao 27.09.1990” |
5. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences enumerated above, against four accused persons which included the appellant herein. The offence being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was committed under the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Charges were framed against four accused persons including the appellant herein.
6. It appears that the original charge framed by the trial court was one for dowry death punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC. However, the trial court acquitted all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, however convicted them for the offence of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 and 498 of the IPC and also for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
7. We are informed that the father-in-law and mother-in-law passed away while the appeal before the High Court was pending. So far as, the husband is concerned he has already undergone the sentence as imposed by the trial court. In fact, he did not file any appeal against his conviction.
8. Th
Without cogent evidence of harassment, the presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.
The court clarified that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under Section 306 IPC; cogent evidence is required to apply the presumption of abetment under Section 113A of t....
Prosecution must establish active participation in abetment to suicide and cruelty; vague allegations are insufficient for conviction.
Cruelty and abetment of suicide – Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for Court to raise presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act, and to hold accused guilty of....
Cruelty and dowry death – Court must guard against false implication of relatives of husband of victim.
(1) Abetment of suicide – In order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence – Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold accused guilty of abetting....
The conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation or active involvement leading to suicide, not mere demands for money.
Insufficient evidence of harassment or coercion to meet dowry demands does not establish cruelty under Section 498-A, nor does it support a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
