Supreme Court of India
Ram Pyarey vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 January, 2025
2025 INSC 71 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1408 OF 2015
RAM PYAREY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
dated 6th August, 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 1993 by
which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant herein and three other co-accused 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 (for short the “IPC”)
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. It appears from the materials on record that the
appellant herein is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the
deceased. The deceased was married to one Ram Sajeevan.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
3.
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.01.15
14:43:07 IST
It is the case of the prosecution that there was
Reason:
harassment at the end of the husband, in-laws and the
1
appellant (Jeth) herein to the deceased.
4. 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 gist of the complaint lodged
by the father of the deceased reads thus:-
“To,
SHO, Police Station Ajgain,
District Unnao:
Sir,
It is respectfully submitted that the complainant
Shiv Prasad Sahu, S/o. Laxman Sahu is resident of Village
Bhakat, P.S. Kotwali, District Unnao. That the father in
law Lal Bahadur., S/o. Jugnu, Village Sambhar Kheda,
Majra Nana Tikur, P.S. Ajgain, Distt. Unnao took my
daughter Kusum with him on 25.09.1990. That in the
intervening night of 26.09.1990 and 27.09.1990 my daughter
was killed by burning by her in-laws. Before this they
were demanding the buffalo and gold chain in dowry after
marriage. And told my daughter Kusum Devi if you will not
give the dowry then we will kill you. They threatened her.
On that I did not send her to her matrimonial house for
one year and on 25.09.1990 my daughter was went to her
matrimonial house alongwith her father in law Lal Bahadur,
Son of Jugnu. They said that she is our
responsibility. However, in the intervening night of
26.09.1990 and 27.09.1990 at about 2.00 A.M. Lal Bahadur,
S/o. Jugnu, Ram Sajeevan, S/o. Lal Bahadur, Ram Pyare,
S/o. Lal Bahadur, Sonawati, W/o. Lal Bahadur killed my
daughter Kusum Devi by burning after pouring kerosene oil
on her.
The complaint of the complainant is against all the four
accused. Action may kindly be taken under law after
reporting the case. Will be highly greatful.
Written by Nand Kishore Sahu,
S/o. Ram Nath, village Rajepur,
P.S. and P.O. Marvi, Distt. Unnao.
Complainant Shiv Prasad Sahu
S/o. Laxman Sahu R/o. Village
Bakhat, Distt. Unnao
27.09.1990”
2
5. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
filed for the offence of dowry death punishable under Section
304B of the IPC, against four accused persons which included
the appellant herein. The offence being exclusively triable
by the Sessions Court was committed under the provisions of
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Charges were
framed against four accused persons including the appellant
herein.
6. It appears that although the original charge framed by
the trial court was one for dowry death punishable under
Section 304B of the IPC yet, the trial court acquitted all
the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section
304-B, however convicted them for the offence of abetment of
suicide punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC
respectively.
7. We are informed that the father-in-law and mother-in-law
passed away while the appeal before the High Court was
pending. So far as, the husband is concerned he has already
undergone the sentence as imposed by the trial court. In
fact, he did not file any appeal against his conviction.
8. The present appellant who is the brother-in-law of the
deceased is here before us with this appeal.
9. We have heard Mr. Bharat Bhushan, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. K. Parmeshwar, the
learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Uttar
Pradesh.
3
10. We have looked into the oral evidence on record. We have
also looked into the nature of the allegations levelled
against the appellant herein.
11. 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.
12. The law as regards the abetment of suicide punishable
under Sections 306 of the IPC is now well settled. It appears
that the Courts below laid much emphasis on Section 113B of
the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Evidence Act”).
Sections 113A & 113B of the Evidence Act talks about
presumption. Sections 113A and 113B respectively read thus:-
“113A. 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.
Explanation.─ For the purposes of this section,
“cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section
498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
113B. Presumption as to dowry death.─ When the
question is whether a person has committed the dowry
death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her
death such woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such
person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.─ For the purposes of this section,
“dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in
section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”4
13. It is relevant to note that under Section 113B, the
Court shall presume dowry death unlike Section 113A where the
provision says that Court may presume abetment of suicide.
This is the vital difference between the two provisions which
raises presumption as regards abetment of suicide. When the
Courts below want to apply Section 113A of the Evidence Act,
the condition precedent is that there has to be first some
cogent evidence as regards cruelty & harassment. In the
absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or
abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court
cannot straightway invoke Section 113A and presume that the
accused abetted the commission of suicide.
14. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is
hereby allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed
by the trial court as confirmed by the High Court is hereby
set aside.
15. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds stand
discharged.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
……………….J.
[J.B.PARDIWALA]
……………….J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
New Delhi;
09th January, 2025.
5