RAM PYAREY v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1408 OF 2015

RAM PYAREY v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1408 OF 2015

DATE: 09/01/2025

BENCH: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan

FACTS:

The present case came to attention of the Apex Court as a Criminal Appeal Petition on the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 06/08/2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 1993. The appeal at the HC was dismissed and thereby, affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellant in the current case is the brother-in-law of the deceased and the case by the prosecution is that, the husband, in-laws along with the appellant harassed the deceased lead to her suicide. The deceased doused herself with kerosene and set herself on fire on 27-09-1990. She died on account of severe burn injuries. The father of the deceased lodged a First Information Report with the Ajgain Police Station, District Unnao on the very same day. The complaint by the father of the deceased had outlined the facts of abuse by the husband, his parents and his brother (the appellant) over the promised dowry of a buffalo and gold chain. The original charge which was framed by the Trial Court was the offence under section 304-B, Dowry Death. But, all four of them were acquitted of the said charge but, later charged with sections 306 and 498-A along with provisions of section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. While, the appeal procedures were pending both the mother-in-law and father-in-law passed away, and the husband is serving his sentence decreed by the Trial Court as he did not move for an appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether the brother-in-law is guilty of abetment of suicide of the deceased under IPC, 1860.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Apex Court decreed in favour of the appellant due the lack of any cogent evidence as regards to harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightaway invoke Section 113B and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide. The Apex Court set aside the Judgement of the HC and also released the appellant for his bail bonds as he was on bail.

The SC came to such an inference due to the lack of any practical evidence which points to the conclusion that the brother-in-law had any hand in abetting the suicide of the deceased. The Court also noted that the lower court laid a great emphasis on the provisions of section 113 B of the Evidence Act, 1872. This emphasis was pointed out as uninformed and baseless. The Court pointed out the fact that in order to attract the provisions of section 113 B of the Evidence Act, 1972 first some cogent evidence as regards incessant harassment should be found out. In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightaway invoke section 113B and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide. The aforementioned lack of evidence of incessant harassment by the appellant was vital in the decree of the case.

ANALYSIS:

In this case the Apex Court has established an example in how to handle sensitive cases which invoke grave provisions particular statutes. The Court also emphasised the importance proper evidence and also advised caution when invoking the provisions of section 113 B of the Evidence, Act.

The lack of evidence against the appellant was pointed out heavily by the court and the following statement in the judgement can corroborate the same. “We are of the view that there is practically no evidence on the basis of which it could be said that the appellant herein as brother-in-law abetted the commission of suicide. We need not say anything further in the matter”.

Similarly, the court also stated that, “It is relevant to note that under Section 113B, the Court may presume unlike Section 113A where the statute says that Court shall presume. This is a vital difference between the two provisions which raises presumption as regards abetment of suicide. When the Courts below want to apply Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards incessant harassment. In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightaway invoke Section 113B and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide”. Thus, emphasising the caution required while exercising the provisions of section 113 B of the Evidence Act, 1872.