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 the Evidence Act.

ORDER :

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, dated 02.03.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2012 by which the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and thereby set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.12.2012 passed by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”). The State of Himachal Pradesh is before this Court challenging the respondent’s acquittal by the High Court.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased, who was married to the respondent on 01.07.2009, committed suicide on 30.09.2009 in her matrimonial home by consuming poison. The respondent is alleged to have abetted her suicide since the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry made by the appellant. A First Information Report viz. FIR No. 32/2009 was lodged by the father of the deceased approximately a week after her death, i.e. on 08.10.2009 with Police Station – Bagga, District – Solan under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 of IPC.

3. A perusal of the FIR indicates that the deceased had informed her mother about the alleged cruelty at the hands of the respondent, when she had visited her parental home a few days after the marriage. She told her mother that the respondent was demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/as dowry and would often beat her up after consuming alcohol. Further, on the day on the incident, i.e. 30.09.2009 the deceased’s brother (PW7) received a phone call from the respondent, who asked him to speak to the deceased. When the deceased was handed over the phone, she started weeping over the phone and thereafter, PW7 rang up the respondent’s father i.e. fatherinlaw of the deceased and requested him to solve the problem. PW7 once again received a phone call from the respondent who objected to the fact that his father was asked to intervene. Ultimately, another phone call was made by the respondent to PW7 and he was informed about the passing away of the deceased.

4. The deceased was first taken to the Primary Health Centre at Darlaghat where she was declared dead. Then her dead body was taken to Civil Hospital, Arki for postmortem examination, which was conducted by PW13 and his final opinion is reproduced as under:

“As per prechemical analysis, organophosphorus poison was found in the specimen sent for chemical analysis, so in my opinion deceased had died because of organ phosphorous poison. I have issued postmortem report Ext. PW13/D (four sheets) in this behalf which is in my hand and bears my signatures.”

Thereafter, upon chemical analysis of the deceased’s viscera specimen by the Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”), traces of organophosphorus poison were found in the liver and kidney of the deceased, as per the FSL Report.

5. After conclusion of investigation and submission of chargesheet, trial court framed charges against the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 201 of IPC. Out of the 17 witnesses examined by the prosecution, the evidence of PW’s 6, 7 and 8 (father, brother and mother of the deceased, respectively) was primarily relied upon by the trial court to arrive at the finding that the respondent is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A & 201 of IPC. Additionally, the presumption under Section 113A¹[[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 sectio