Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Sri Maheswar Mali S/o- Late Saona Ram Mali
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.47 OF 2013
Decided On : 02-04-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 372 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498(A) and 306 - Appeal against acquittal - The trial Court acquitted the accused from charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide, finding insufficient evidence of cruelty or dowry demand - The appellant argued that the presumption under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act was not rebutted by the accused - The trial Court's findings were based on legal evidence and a probable view of the case. (Paras 2, 12, 18)
(B) Presumption of abetment - Under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act, a presumption arises against the husband if a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage, provided there is evidence of cruelty - The prosecution failed to establish such evidence in this case. (Paras 7, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's daughter, married to the accused, died under suspicious circumstances shortly after marriage, with allegations of torture and demands for dowry. The trial Court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence. (Paras 3, 12)
Findings of Court:
The trial Court found no evidence of cruelty or dowry demands, and the relationship between the deceased and accused was deemed good. The evidence presented did not support the charges. (Paras 12, 18)
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial Court's acquittal was justified based on the evidence and whether the presumption under Section 113(A) could be applied. (Paras 2, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld the trial Court's findings, emphasizing that it would not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial Court's view was unreasonable or based on conjecture. The evidence did not support the charges of cruelty or abetment. (Paras 16, 18)
Result: The criminal appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Gogoi, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent and Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the private respondents.
2. This appeal is preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment & order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, (F.T.C.), Kamrup, Rangia (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) in Session Case No. 38(K)/2007, whereby the accused persons/private respondents were acquitted from the charge under Section 498(A)/306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.09.2004 the appellant lodged an FIR before the jurisdictional police station alleging inter alia that on 11.02.2004 his daughter Smti. Mintu Das Deka (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was married to the accused person/respondent No.2 and after a few days of marriage she was subjected to torture by the accused persons/private respondents. It was further alleged that she was pregnant, however, the accused/respondent No.2 was forcing her to terminate the pregnancy, which she refused. It is further alleged that on 06.09.2004 the deceased died because of burn injury.
4. Accordingly, an FIR was registered as Rangia P.S. Case No.336/2004, under Section 304(B) of the IPC corresponding G.R. Case No. 685/2004. After the investigation was completed, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet against the accused persons/private respondents under Section 304 (B) of IPC. Accordingly, the matter was committed to the trial Court whereafter, the trial Court framed charge against the accused persons/private respondents under Section 498(A)/306 of the IPC.
5. The prosecution examined as many as 12(twelve) witnesses in support of their case, whereas the accused persons/private respondents examined 2(two) witnesses in their defence.
6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the trial Court acquitted the accused persons/private respondents by judgment & order dated 13.12.2012 from the aforesaid charges. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred.
7. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Evidence Act”), in the event a married woman committed suicide within a period of 7(seven) years of her marriage, it shall be presumed that her husband has abated her to commit suicide. He further submits that it is for the accused to rebut such presumption by adducing cogent evidence. He accordingly, submits that since the aforesaid presumption has not been rebutted by the accused persons/private respondents by adducing cogent evidence, the judgment & order of the trial Court acquitting the accused persons from the charged offence is palpably and manifestly erroneous.
8. Per contra Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the private respondents submits that the judgment & order of the trial Court being based on legal evidence, no interference from this Court is warranted. He further submits that the trial Court upon considering the evidence and other material on record and analyzing the same having taken a probable view in the matter, the same ought not to be disturbed by this Court under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
9. I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels of both parties and also perused the material available on record.
10. It appears that though the prosecution witnesses especially PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-8, who are the parents, sister and brothers of the deceased, deposed that the accused persons/private respondents demanded a Maruti Car and Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) from the deceased, and upon the same being not fulfilled subjected her to cruelty. Ho
The presumption of abetment under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act requires evidence of cruelty, which was not established in this case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in cases of acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for reliable evidence linking alleged cruelty to suicide.
The judgment emphasized the presumption of innocence, the principles for interference with a judgment of acquittal, and the need for trustworthy evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must provide clear evidence of instigation or connection to establish charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide under IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
Court emphasized the necessity of establishing clear evidence of cruelty to invoke presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, reinforcing the presumption of innocence ....
The presumption of innocence, the need for clear evidence to prove guilt, and the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquittal unless it is perverse or unsustainable in law.
The presumption of abetment under Section 113A of the Evidence Act does not apply automatically; the prosecution must prove cruelty to establish guilt under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.
The appellate court upheld the trial Court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity for compelling evidence to overturn such decisions.
In appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence prevails, requiring clear evidence of instigation or cruelty for a conviction under IPC sections concerning abetment of suicide.
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
