Back
1999 (2) JLJ 195
D.M. Dharmadhikari and Miss Usha Shukla, JJ.
Balram and another v. State of M.P.
Cr. Appeal No. 448 of 1988; against the judgment of Shri D.C. Dubey, III
Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 228 of 1987; on
reference by Hon‘ble Justice Shri CK. Prasad, J; Decided on 8.12.1998.
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 113A -- presumption under -- can be raised only when there is evidence of cruelty towards the woman. [Para 9]
(3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 113A -- period of seven years -- to be reckoned from date of marriage -- such marriage may not be strictly in accordance with personally -- some kind of marriage ceremony is sufficient if she treats the accused as her husband. [Para 10]
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 304B and 498A -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 113A -- introduction of the provisions under -- object and reasons are to prevent offences against married women. [Paras 10 & 11]
(5) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 113A -- insertion of provision is for raising presumption -- offence of cruelty against wife is committed within/our walls of house -- no direct evidence is easily available. [Para 11]
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 113A -- presumption under -- is rebuttable by the accused in his defence by direct or circumstantial evidence. [Para 11]
(7) Interpretation of Statutes -- criminal statutes relating to offences or imposition of penalty -- should be strictly construed -- but when thing charged comes within the words and spirit -- penal statute may be construed like any other instrument. Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, J, 6th edition p. 533. (1872) LR 4 PC 184 P 191, AIR 1963 SC 1116, AIR 1976 SC 1929 and AIR 1980 SC 593 relied on. [Para 12]
(8) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 304B, 498A and 306 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 50 proviso -- non-insertion of Ss. 304B, 498A and 306, IPC in proviso to S. 50 of the Act -- is deliberate act of Legislature -- it is for excluding opinion, evidence relating to marriage. [Para 12]
(9) Legislature -- while enacting law -- cannot be presumed to be oblivious or forgetful of existing law on the subject. 1990 CrLJ 1666 relied on. [Para 13]
(10) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 50 and 113A -- offences under Ss. 304B, 498A and 306 IPC -- direct evidence of marriage between victim and accused -- not always available -- marriage may be proved by opinion evidence -- on such proof presumption under S. 113A may be drawn. AIR 1988 SC 644 and AIR 1966 SC 614 distinguished. [Paras 14 & 15]
(11) Interpretation of Statutes -- provision of law should be construed to best advance object of law -- also to suppress the mischief [Para 17]
¼1½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 113d && mi/kkj.kk && ,slh efgyk ds laca/k esa miyC/k ugha tks ek= miiRuh] j[ksy] os‘;k vFkok uSfefÙkd vfrfFk Fkh && rc Hkh ugha dh tk ldrh tc efgyk v;qDr dk;ksZa esa yxh gks && buesa ls dksbZ Hkh fookg ij vk/kkfjr ukrsnkjh dk nkok ugha dj ldrhA ¿ iSjk 9 ¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 113d && mi/kkj.kk && rc gh dh tk ldrh gS tc efgyk ds izfr Øwjrk dk lk{; gksA ¿ iSjk 9 ¼3½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 113d && lkr o"kZ dh dkykof/k && fookg ds fnukad ls laxf.kr dh tk,xh && ,slk fookg Loh; fof/k ds vfrfu;efu"B vuqlj.k esa ugha Hkh gks ldrk gS && fdlh izdkj dk fookg&deZ i;kZIr gS ;fn og vfHk;qDr ds lkFk vius ifr tSlk O;ogkj djrh gSA ¿ iSjk 10 ¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 304[k rFkk 498d && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 113d && mica/kksa dk iqu%LFkkiu && mÌs‘; rFkk dkj.k fookfgr efgykvksa ds fo:) vijk/kksa dks jksduk gSA ¿ iSjk 10 ,oa 11 ¼5½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 113d && mica/k dk var%LFkkiu mi/kkj.kk djus ds fy, fd;k x;k gS && iRuh ds izfr Øwjrk dk vijk/k ?kj dh pkjfnokjh ds Hkhrj fd;k tkrk gS && izR;{k lk{; lgt miyC/k ugha gksrkA ¿ iSjk 11 ¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 113d && mi/kkj.kk && vfHk;qDr }kjk viuh izfrj{kk esa izR;{k vFkok ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; }kjk [kaMuh; gSA ¿ iSjk 11 ¼7½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && vijk/kksa vFkok ‘kkfLr ds vf/kjksi.k ds laca/k esa nkafMd fof/k && vfrfu;efu"B vFkZ yxkuk pkfg, && ijarq tc vkjksfir ckr ‘‘kCn rFkk Hkko ds v/khu vkrh gS && nkafMd fof/k dk vFkZ vU; fdlh Hkh fy[kr ds leku yxk;k tk ldrk gSA U;k- ts-ih- flag d`r LVsV~;wVjh baVjfizVs‘ku] NBok¡ laLdj.k i`"B 533] ¼1872½ ,y vkj 4 ih lh 184] , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 1116] , vkb vj 1976 ,l lh 1929 rFkk , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 593 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 12 ¼8½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 304d] 498d rFkk 306 && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 50 ijarqd && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 50 ds ijarqd esa /kkjk 304[k] 498d rFkk 306] na-iz-la- var%LFkkfir ugah dh tkuk && fo/kku&eaMy }kjk tkucw> dj fd;k x;k dk;Z gS && ,slk fookg ds laca/k esa jk; lk{; vioftZr djus ds fy, gSA ¿ iSjk 12 ¼9½ fo/kku&eaMy && fof/k vf/kfu;fer djrs le; && ml fo"k; ij fo|eku fof/k ds ckjs esa foLej.k‘khy vFkok ykijokg gksus dh mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrhA 1990 lhvkj ,y ts 1666 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 13 ¼10½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 50 rFkk 113d && vijk/k /kkjk 304[k] 498d rFkk 306] na-iz-la- ds v/khu && vkgr rFkk vfHk;qDr ds chp fookg dk izR;{k lk{; && lnk miyC/k ugha gksrk && fookg jk; lk{; }kjk lkfcr fd;k tk ldrk gS && ,sls lcwr ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 113d ds v/khu mi/kkj.kk dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 644 rFkk , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 614 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 14 ,oa 15 ¼11½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && fof/k ds mica/k dk vFkZ ,slk yxkuk pkfg, ftlls fofk ds mÌs‘; dh vf/kd&ls&vf/kd iwfrZ gks && fjf"V dk neu Hkh gksA ¿ iSjk 17
Dharmadhikari, J. -- 1. Learned Single Judge C.K. Prasad J. in the course of hearing of this appeal of the accused persons against their conviction under Section 306 r/w Section 498-A of IPC found that the legal question of applicability of the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act against the husband on allegation of abetment of suicide by a woman not legally married to him is a question of law of importance. He has, therefore, referred that legal question for decision by a larger Bench and that is how on the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the said question referred by Single Judge has been placed before us for consideration and decision.
2. At the outset, we may state that we are confining our decision to a purely legal question posed to us and leave the matter for decision on merits by the appropriate single Bench on the basis of opinion expressed by us.
3. We heard the matter at sufficient length on 13.8.98 but as after careful deliberation, we found that the legal question involved is of great public importance and would have far reaching effect on all pending, and future cases, we thought it fit to hear the Advocate General of the State and Senior Members of the Bar. On behalf of the appellant-accused, we have heard Shri Surendra Singh and for the State Shri Dilip Naik, Addl. Advocate General. We listed the matter for the second time and heard also Shri S.C. Datt, Senior Advocate and Shri S.L. Saxena, Advocate General as amicus curie.
4. The provision which has come-up for consideration and interpretation before us is Section 113-A of the Evidence Act reads as under :--
Sec. 113-A -- "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."
5. Senior Advocates Shri S.C. Datt and Shri Surendra Singh, submit that Section 113-A of the Evidence Act being part of Penal statute, strict construction has to be placed on the words and language employed in Section 113-A of the Act. It is submitted that the heading of the Section makes it clear that it provides raising of a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. It is also pointed out that the words used in Section 113-A of the Evidence Act such as 'woman', 'her husband', or 'any relative of her husband', 'within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage' and the repeated use of words 'her husband' or 'relative of her husband' are clear enough to convey the legislative intent that the presumption can be drawn against the husband in case of suicide by a legally married woman. Such presumption cannot be raised when there is no legally valid marriage between the so called husband and the woman who is alleged to have committed suicide. Reference in this connection is made to other Penal provisions brought on statute book by amending Penal Code and the Evidence Act by the Criminal Law (2nd Amendment) Act, 1983. Specific reference has been made to Sections 125 CrPC, 304-A, 306, 498-A of the IPC and Section 50 of the Evidence Act.
6. Shri Surendra Singh placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another (AIR 1988 Supreme Court 644) in which construing provisions in Section 125 CrPC, the word 'wife' has been interpreted to mean only 'legally wedded wife' as is understood in personal law applicable to the parties. Reference is also made to the decision in Kanwal Ram and others v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration [AIR 1966 SC 614 (V 53 C 116)] which was concerning offence under
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
