Section 113A presumption cannot arise without evidence of suicide and cruelty.

Chetnaben died after sustaining a head injury at her matrimonial home, approximately 20 months after her marriage.

Her husband’s father initially reported the incident as an accidental fall, and the deceased’s family members made no allegations of cruelty or dowry demand in their initial statements.

The deceased’s father later lodged a complaint alleging dowry demands, cruelty and abetment of suicide.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the IPC.

The State and the complainant appealed against the acquittal.

The High Court considered the evidence, including the witnesses’ statements and medical evidence, and the Sessions Court’s reasons for acquittal.

Section 498A IPC criminalises a husband’s or relative’s subjection of a woman to “cruelty,” as defined in its Explanation; Section 306 IPC punishes abetment of suicide, and Section 107 IPC defines abetment through instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid.

Under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, a court may presume abetment where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty, having regard to all the circumstances; the presumption requires evidence supporting its foundational conditions.

On an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence, but must account for the reinforced presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, it should not disturb the acquittal.

applying Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, and other cited authorities

The High Court found that the prosecution witnesses’ later allegations of cruelty and dowry demand lacked specific particulars and materially differed from their initial statements, which contained no such allegations.

The medical evidence was consistent with the possibility of an accidental fall, and the scene panchnama did not independently establish that the accused had inflicted the injuries.

The prosecution therefore failed to prove cruelty under Section 498A, establish that the death was suicidal, or show abetment under Sections 306 and 107 IPC.

The conditions for invoking Section 113A were not established by cogent evidence.

The Trial Court’s assessment was a reasonable view of the evidence and disclosed no perversity or other basis for appellate interference.

Both appeals were dismissed, the acquittal was confirmed, the bail bonds were cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Trial Court.