Section 113A Presumption Cannot Arise Without Evidence That the Deceased Was Subjected to Cruelty.

The respondent was the deceased Gayatriben’s husband. They had been married for approximately one year and seven to eight months and were living and working as agricultural labourers in Gujarat.

The prosecution alleged that the respondent physically and mentally harassed her, including by taunting her about not conceiving, and that she died by suicide by hanging on 1 October 2014.

The Trial Court acquitted him of offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), finding the prosecution evidence insufficient. The State appealed against the acquittal.

Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the respondent

Whether the Trial Court erred in law or fact in appreciating the prosecution evidence, or whether its judgment suffered from illegality or perversity

Section 498-A IPC criminalises specified forms of cruelty by a husband or his relative, including wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury, and certain forms of coercive harassment; Section 306 IPC punishes abetment of suicide, while Section 107 IPC defines abetment through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.

Under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, a court may presume abetment of suicide by a husband or his relative where the woman died by suicide within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty, having regard to all the circumstances.

The Court stated that such a presumption requires evidence establishing cruelty and some material supporting an inference against the accused.

On appeals against acquittal, an 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.

The evidence established that the deceased and respondent quarrelled and that the deceased had left the matrimonial home on an earlier occasion, but the alleged settlement agreement was not duly proved.

The witnesses did not provide specific, reliable details of cruelty or harassment, particularly near the date of death; the evidence also indicated that the deceased’s mother had spoken with her on the previous day without any reported complaint of ill-treatment.

The Court therefore found no sufficient evidentiary basis to establish cruelty under Section 498-A or to invoke the discretionary presumption under Section 113-A.

In the absence of proof of the necessary ingredients of abetment under Sections 107 and 306 IPC, the Trial Court’s acquittal was a reasonable view of the evidence and disclosed no basis for appellate interference.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the acquittal was confirmed, and the respondent’s bail bond was cancelled.