Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, has held that the mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) would not automatically apply. Therefore, before a presumption under Section 113A of IEA is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard.

What was the Background of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana Case?

• The deceased, Rani, was married to the appellant and the marriage was solemnized on 10^th May 1992.
• In the wedlock with the convict, Rani gave birth to a girl child.
• The case of the prosecution is that soon after marriage, the appellant started demanding money.
• Rani committed suicide on account of incessant harassment at the end of her husband (appellant).
• The appellant was charged with the offence of abetting the commission of suicide by his wife punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• He was convicted by the Trial Court.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
• The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
• Thereafter, a criminal appeal was filed before the Supreme Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the IEA would not automatically apply. Therefore, before a presumption under Section 113A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard.
• It was further held that in the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court should look for cogent and convincing proof of the act of incitement to the commission of suicide and such an offending action should be proximate to the time of occurrence.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 306 of IPC

About:

• This Section deals with the abetment of suicide.
• It states that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• The basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment.

Case Law:

• In the case of Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana, (2019), the Supreme Court held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability.

Section 113B of the IEA

About:

• This Section deals with the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.
• It states that 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.
• Explanation. For the purposes of this section, cruelty shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the IPC.
• This Section was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act of 1983.
• The Section requires that her husband or relatives subjected her to cruelty and that the married woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage.

Case Law:

• In the case of Smt. Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991), the Supreme Court held that from the mere fact of suicide within seven years of marriage, one should not jump to the conclusion of abetment unless cruelty was proved. The court has the discretion to raise or not to raise the presumption, because of the words may presume. It must take into account all the circumstances of the case which is an additional safeguard.