The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman within seven years of her marriage under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, and the significance of proving cruelty by the husband or his relatives in cases of abetment of suicide.

Headnote:
306 I.P.C - Criminal Appeal - Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 306 I.P.C, which deals with abetment of suicide, and also considered the implications of Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The court highlighted the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman within seven years of her marriage under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act and the requirement to prove cruelty by the husband or his relatives. The court also emphasized the distinction between the presumptions under Section 113-A and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, and the significance of the injuries found on the body of the deceased in determining the conviction under Section 306 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 306 I.P.C for the suicide of his wife. The prosecution alleged harassment for dowry and physical abuse by the appellant and his family, leading to the suicide. The trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 306 I.P.C, while acquitting the co-accused.
Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 306 I.P.C based on the presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman within seven years of her marriage. The court also considered the injuries on the body of the deceased and the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of harassment for dowry, physical abuse, and the circumstances leading to the suicide of the deceased. The court also addressed the presumption of abetment of suicide and the significance of the injuries on the body of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act requires proof of cruelty by the husband or his relatives. The injuries on the body of the deceased and the contradictions in the statements were crucial in determining the conviction under Section 306 I.P.C.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 306 I.P.C was confirmed, but the sentence was reduced to five years considering his circumstances as a single parent with minor daughters and no previous criminal history.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Satish Pandey, learned AGA for the State.

2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No.685 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Tara Chandra & another) under Section 306 I.P.C, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 306 I.P.C. to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s further rigorous imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case is that the informant, Nanku Lal married his daughter, Pushpa Devi, to the appellant on 13.04.2013. After their marriage, they were residing at Neem Sarai, Allahabad. On 31.05.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., Tara Chandra, murdered his daughter, Pushpa Devi. After killing her he informed on phone that his daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself. He reached Allahabad from Kaushambi and was informed that the appellant had taken the dead body of his daughter to his village, Sarsawa. When he reached there he found that the appellant and other persons were preparing for cremation of her dead body. It was further alleged that the appellant, his father, Punni Ram, his sister and brother-in-law used to harass his daughter for dowry and used to beat her often. They used to demand gold chain, land for building house and money in cash.

4. The aforesaid first information report was registered as Case Crime No.312 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted with prior preparation of inquest report. Sub-Inspector, Rohit Kmar, recovered the dupata used in commission of suicide. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and found that the sister and brother-in-law of the applicant had wrongly been implicated. He submitted the charge-sheet only against the appellant and his father, Punni Ram, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant and his father under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, and alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused persons denied the charges and sought trial.

7. PW-1, Ram Deen, father of the deceased, stated in his examination-in-chief before the Court that he married his daughter, Pushpa Devi, to the appellant, Tara Chandra, on 13.04.2012. They used to reside at Neem Sarai, Allahabad. On 31.05.2016 at about 8 p.m. in the night he received telephonic call from his son-in-law that his daughter has hanged herself to death. On this information he went there and saw dead body of his daughter. He further stated that the appellant, his father and other members of the family never demanded any dowry nor she ever informed in this regard. His daughter had fallen from the wooden ladder while she was trying to go upstairs, 2-4 days prior to her death. The wooden ladder had slipped and she suffered various injuries on her body on account of fall. Probably because of pain she hanged herself to death. The witness was declared hostile.

8. PW-II, Shiv Kumar alias Chhotu, brother of the deceased, PW-III, Smt. Shyama Devi, mother of the deceased, PW-IV, Pooja Devi, elder sister of the deceased and PW-V, Raj Kumar, brother of the deceased repeated the contents of statement given by PW-1 and all of them were also declared hostile.

9. PW-VI, Dr. Munendra Kumar, who conducted post mortem of the body of the deceased stated that the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased.

(i) Ligature mark present all around upper part of neck except, gap 8.0 cm on left side of neck in width 2.0 cm. Ligature mark 6.0 cm below from right ear 4.0 cm below from chin 3.0 cm below from left ear, cut the ligature mark white and glitering present.

(ii) Contusion 10.0 x 4.0 cm right shoulder area lateral aspect.

(iii) Contusion 3.0 x 2.0 cm on right lateral side of che

Click Here to Read the rest of this document