Cruelty by a husband towards his wife due to suspicion of her character, leading to her death within seven years of marriage, raises a presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.

1. - Today S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 410/2013 preferred by the applicant-appellant Kapil is listed. During the course of arguments, a joint request was made by Shri M.K. Garg, counsel for the applicant and Shri A.R. Nikub for State that since the record from the trial Court had already been requisitioned and the same are available. The appeal itself be decided. On the joint request and with the consent of the parties, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 623/2010 is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. The appellant Kapil along with Iris parents was named as accused in case F.I.R. No. 510/2010 Police Station, Khamera for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. Neelam about three years before from the date of occurrence was married with the present appellant Kapil. Neelam died on 3.1.2010 due to burn injury in the matrimonial home. PW-3 Narendra Pachori (father of the deceased) made statements before the police on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered. In the statements, it was stated by the complainant that three years ago his daughter was Neelam used to harass her for bringing less dowry and they were demanding dowry. It was further stated that she was often neaten by in-laws who used to demand dowry. It was also stated that a few days before she came to the house of her parents and disclosed that the accused gave her beating and were demanding dowry. The complainant stated that he had sent her daughter back to the matrimonial house with an assurance that better times shall prevail.

3. The above said F.I.R. was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The case was committed for trial to the Court of Additional Session Judge (FT), Banswara. The appellants along with his parents was charged for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C.

4. The trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 13.12.2010 acquitted the parents of the appellant for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and Section 306 I.P.C., however held the appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced him for the above offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of I.P.C. vide a separate order of even date, for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to suffer three months S.I. Further, for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo one month S.I. The Court below had ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant.

5. Shri Badami Lal who appeared as PW-1 slated in the Court that daughter of his nephew was married with the present appellant. During the cross-examination, it was admitted that by this witness that before two and half year of the occurrence, Neelam was married to the appellant. For six months she was kept well and the appellant Kapil being suspicious never allowed Neelam to go out of house. He was extraordinary suspicious if she used to contact anybody.

6. The learned trial Court has returned a finding so far as demand of dowry and infliction of cruelty and harassment of the deceased is concerned, the prosecution could not prove its case. It further held that since the appellant used to doubt the character of his wife, on that account, lie used to quarrel with his wife and beat her.

7. Shri M.K. Garg counsel for the appellant submits that so far as the allegation that the appellant used to beat his wife doubting her character is concerned, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the witnesses as they have intentionally told lie to the Court that the accused used to demand dowry and harass the deceased. The counsel for the appellant further submits that the wi