The court relied on the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which states that if a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and her husband or his relatives have subjected her to cruelty, it may be presumed that the suicide was abetted by them.

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. Appellants are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of deceased Kiran who have assailed the conviction order dated 17.01.2004 and order of sentence dated 06.02.2004 passed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Session Case No.668/1996 arising out of FIR No.739/1984 P.S. Kalkaji u/s 498A-306 IPC vide which both the appellants were convicted for offence u/s 498A/306 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence u/s 306 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence u/s 498A IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently and the convicts were entitled for benefit as provided u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution case, as culled out from the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C is that, on 13.06.1984, information was received vide DD No. 16 Ex. PW10/A that one lady Kiran was admitted in Safdarjung hospital in burnt condition. On receipt of this D.D., SI Laxmi Chand (PW10) along with HC Parasnath reached the hospital where he collected the MLC of injured Kiran. An application, Ex. PW 10/B was moved by HC Parasnath and vide his endorsement Ex.10/C, the doctor declared her conscious and not under influence. SI Laxmi Chand recorded the statement of Kiran on which she put her thumb mark in token of its correctness. On the basis of this statement, Ex.PW10/D, rukka Ex.PW7/B was prepared and was sent through HC Paras Nath to police station on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW 7/A was recorded. An application Ex.PW10/E was moved by SI Laxmi Chand with a request to the SDM for recording the statement of the deceased. However by the time SDM reached the hospital, Kiran was declared not fit for statement by the Doctor. Crime team was called at the spot. Photographs of the scene were taken. Site plan was prepared. Further investigation was handed over to Inspector Gajender Singh (PW18), who recorded the statement of witnesses. Injured Kiran succumbed to burn injuries. Her post mortem was got conducted. The accused were arrested. Exhibits were sent to CFSL. Two letters written by the deceased and her admitted handwriting were sent to CFSL. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them.

3. The aforesaid two accused were duly put on trial for the offence u/s 498/306 r/w Section 34 IPC. At the trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses. Apart from giving their explanation u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that they have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of PW13 Sudesh Rani as she was interested in getting her son married to accused Nisha to which they were not agreeable, the accused also examined six witnesses in defence. Upon meticulous examination of the entire evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellants. The aforesaid judgment has been challenged by the two appellants by way of present appeal.

4. I have heard Sh. Vikas Arora, Advocate for the appellants at great length and also perused the written submissions filed by Ms. Fizani Hussain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also the record.

5. Challenging the findings and observations of the Court below, learned counsel for the appellants submitted:

(i) There is wrong narration of facts in the Trial Court judgment that as per the CFSL report, Ex.PW20/B, there was smell of kerosene oil on the clothes of the deceased and poison was found in the viscera whereas as per the CFSL report, no kerosene oil was detected and the viscera report also gave negative report for poison. It was nobody’s case that poison was given to Kiran.

(ii) The deceased was suffering from epilepsy even prior to marriage. Although father and uncle of the deceased tried to suppress this fact, however, Anup Rani (PW11) admitted that the deceased was