Case: Satish Shetty Vs. State Of Karnataka

of the Evidence Act which permits raising of presumption as to abetment to suicide by a married woman. Such a statutory presumption though discretionary, may be presumed by the Court in appropriate cases where the question of abetment of suicide by a woman is under consideration in respect of her husband or any of his relative and if the suicide has been committed within seven years of marriage, provided the husband or such relative had subjected her to cruelty. 19. Since the High Court had recorded a finding against the appellant of causing cruelty to the deceased for his conviction under Section 498-A, all the essential ingredients for raising of presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act were clearly made out. But the issue raised before us is whether the High Court was justified in resorting to exercise such a discretion as was available to it under Section 113A or not. 20. That the Court has a discretion in the matter of resorting to presumption is clear from the plain words used in that Section - "the Court may presume" (emphasis supplied). The law on this issue is also well settled and therefore needs no elaborate discussion but at this stage the relevant case laws cited by learned senior counsel for the appellant need to be taken note of. 21. Reliance has been placed on behalf of appellant on the judgment of this Court in the case of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, (2004) 12 SCC 257. In this case it was reiterated that Section 113A of the Evidence Act vests a discretion in the Court to raise such a presumption having regard to all the other circumstances of the case. On evidence and facts of that case it was found that the nature of cruelty proved in that case was not such as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury etc. Reliance was also placed upon the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750. The facts of that case were entirely different and required interpretation of the term "abetment" as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. In that case the victim was a servant of the accused and the case did not require any examination of inter-dependence and inter-connectivity of Section 498A and 306 of the IPC or of Section 113A of the Evidence Act. 22. Reliance was also placed upon case of M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626. The Court followed the general law with regard to ingredients of abetment in the context of Section 306 of the IPC and quashed the prosecution of some of the relations of the husband on the peculiar facts of the case which disclosed that there was no allegation of any dowry demand or instigation against those appellants although they were relatives of the husband. In the case of Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 595 , this Court acquitted the appellant who was husband of the deceased for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC on the ground that the prosecution had not succeeded in establishing the offences. The accused had merely left the deceased wife in the matrimonial home in the company of his parents while proceeding to report for duty as a constable to another place. This Court held that such action would not amount to abetment to commit suicide. 23. The aforesaid case laws do not lay down any proposition of law which may warrant interference with the views of the High Court in the impugned judgment. In the case of Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 16 SCC 512 the law was reiterated that if on appreciation of evidence two views are possible then the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused. There is no quarrel with the said proposition. The High Court was aware of such legal principle and keeping the same in mind, it has discussed the evidence for coming to a conclusion that the findings of the trial court leading to acquittal were fully unwarranted and it is not a case where two views are possible. Hence the High Court proceeded to convict the appellant for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.24. Once the prosecution succeeds in establishing the component of cruelty leading to conviction under Section 498A, in our view only in a rare case, the Court can refuse to invoke the presumption of abetment, if other requirements of Section 113A of the Evidence Act stand satisfied. This proposition is amply supported by the view taken by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of K. Prema S. Rao and Anr. (Supra). Further, the High Court has given good reasons on the basis of facts brought on record through evidence for exercising the discretion of invoking the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act and thereafter it has discussed in detail the explanations given by the appellant in the initial version by way of Unnatural Death Report as well as the later explanations. The High Court found the later explanations unacceptable and the initial explanation that the deceased committed suicide because she was not permitted to go to her mothers place does not inspire confidence and has rightly been rejected by the High Court. Only for such a trivial matter, a hale and hearty young woman having a ten months old son and a pregnancy of twenty weeks is not at all expected to take her life. The appellant not only gave absolutely no explanation for the injuries on the person of the deceased, rather he chose to conceal them by keeping mum. Clearly the appellant failed to rebut the presumptions raised against him under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. Having gone through the relevant facts and the reasonings of the trial court we are not persuaded to take a different view.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The High Court was aware of such legal principle and keeping the same in mind, it has discussed the evidence for coming to a conclusion that the findings of the trial court leading to acquittal were fully unwarranted and it is not a case where two views are possible. Hence the High Court proceeded to convict the appellant for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.24. Once the prosecution succeeds in establishing the component of cruelty leading to conviction under Section 498A, in our view only in a rare case, the Court can refuse to invoke the presumption of abetment, if other requirements of Section 113A of the Evidence Act stand satisfied. This proposition is amply supported by the view taken by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of K. Prema S. Rao and Anr. (Supra). Further, the High Court has given good reasons on the basis of facts brought on record through evidence for exercising the discretion of invoking the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act and thereafter it has discussed in detail the explanations given by the appellant in the initial version by way of Unnatural Death Report as well as the later explanations. The High Court found the later explanations unacceptable and the initial explanation that the deceased committed suicide because she was not permitted to go to her mothers place does not inspire confidence and has rightly been rejected by the High Court. Only for such a trivial matter, a hale and hearty young woman having a ten months old son and a pregnancy of twenty weeks is not at all expected to take her life. The appellant not only gave absolutely no explanation for the injuries on the person of the deceased, rather he chose to conceal them by keeping mum. Clearly the appellant failed to rebut the presumptions raised against him under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. Having gone through the relevant facts and the reasonings of the trial court we are not persuaded to take a different