PARVEEN KUMAR versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 54, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 54 : 2024 INSC 717
Parveen Kumar 
v. 
The State of Himachal Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No(S). 1014-1015 of 2013)
23 September 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose, if the High Court was justified in convicting and 
sentencing the husband u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC for subjecting the 
victim-wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A and 306 – Husband or relative 
of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Abetment 
of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption 
as to abetment of suicide by a married woman – Victim-
wife committed suicide by consuming tablets of aluminum 
phosphide-insecticide within two years of marriage – FIR by 
the victim’s brother alleging that the husband had subjected 
the victim to cruelty and forced her to commit suicide – Trial 
court convicted and sentenced the husband for the offence 
u/s.498-A however, acquitted him for the offence u/s.306 – 
High Court upheld the order of conviction u/s.498A as also 
convicted and sentenced him u/s.306 – Challenge to:
Held: Giving birth to a male child by the victim and filing of 
three cases during her life time against the husband-appellant, 
FIR u/ ss.498-A and 506; complaint u/s.107/151 CrPC and case 
u/s.125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and her child, 
not disputed  – Fact of the deceased having committed suicide 
by consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide-insecticide, also
duly proved by the prosecution – Courts below concurrently held 
the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.498-A by holding that the 
appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty – Appellant’s 
case that as per the suicide note, the suicide was committed by 
the deceased on account of her intolerable pain and illness and 
not due to the cruelty of the appellant, cannot be accepted – 
* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
55
Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Suicidal note not duly exhibited for being admitted in evidence, 
as also the appellant had not even bothered to inform the parents 
of the deceased immediately after the incident smacked of his 
guilt – High Court rightly raised the presumption u/s.113A to 
hold that the suicide was abetted by the appellant – Prosecution 
by leading cogent evidence established that the deceased had 
committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of 
her marriage and that the husband had subjected her to cruelty 
as contemplated in s.498-A – Thus, no illegality or infirmity in the 
order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant for the 
offences u/ss.498-A and 306. [Paras 9-11]
Case Law Cited
Hans Raj v. State of Haryana [2004] 2 SCR 676 : 2004 (12) SCC 
257; Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana [2024] 2 SCR 830 : 2024 
(3) SCC 573 – relied on.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973.
List of Keywords
Subjecting wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide; Abetment 
of suicide; Presumption as to abetment of suicide by married 
woman; Consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide,insecticide; 
Commission of wilful conduct; Maintenance; Presumption u/s.113A 
of the Evidence Act.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1014-
1015 of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2011 of the High Court of 
H.P. at Shimla in CRLA Nos.
97 and 325 of 2000
Appearances for Parties
Ashok Tobria, M.S. Yadav, Rajesh Kumar Pandey, S.Y. Usmani, 
Rishi Kumar, Sahil Kaushik, Sachin Soni, Mayank Yadav, Pushkar 
Anand, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Sarthak Chiller, Rohit Lochav, Advs. for 
the Respondent.
56
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1.	
Both the appeals arise out of the common Judgment and Order 
dated 16.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh 
at Shimla in the Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2000 preferred by the 
appellant-Parveen Kumar and the Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2000 
preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh.
2.	
The short facts as curled out from the record are that on 10.10.1992 the 
appellant had married Raksha Devi (the deceased). The said Raksha 
Devi gave birth to a male child from the loins of the appellant at her 
parental home on 18.12.1993. As per the case of the prosecution, 
the appellant used to beat his wife even when she was pregnant 
and therefore, she had gone away to her parental home and had got 
registered an FIR being No. 59 of 1993 for the offence under Section 
498-A of IPC on 12.09.1993 at the Police Station Ghumarwin. She also 
filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance 
from the appellant, and also filed another complaint under Section 
107/151 Cr.P.C. Somewhere in May 1994, the appellant brought back 
his wife to her matrimonial home. On 22.09.1994, the said Raksha Devi 
gave a statement in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in 
the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that she did not want 
to pursue the matter as she was living happily with the appellant. 
Similar statement was also allegedly
given in the Court in respect of 
the complaint filed by her. However, on 26.09.1994 the wife of the 
appellant Raksha Devi consumed tablets of aluminum phosphide 
at about 1:45 a.m. She was admitted in the hospital for treatment, 
however could not survive and died at 5.00 a.m. on the same day.
3.	
The information regarding her death was reduced to writing by the 
SHO in the daily diary register vide DDR No. 30. The SHO sent the 
body of the deceased to the hospital for carrying out the post-mortem. 
On 01.10.1994 the brother of the deceased, Sh. Madan Lal (PW-3) 
lodged an FIR being No. 97 of 1994 at the Police Station, Bhoranj 
alleging that the appellant had subjected his sister to cruelty and 
forced her to commit suicide. The Investigating Officer after carrying 
out the investigation submitted the chargesheet against the appellant 
for the offence under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. The Sessions
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
57
Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Court, Hamirpur, H.P. after appreciating the evidence on record 
adduced by the prosecution as well as by the defence, convicted 
the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and 
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two 
years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with the default clause, however, 
acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC vide 
the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2000.
4.	
Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order passed by the 
Sessions Court, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 
2000 against his conviction under Section 498-A IPC whereas the 
State of Himachal Pradesh preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 325 
of 2000 against the acquittal of the appellant from the offence under 
Section 306 of IPC before the High Court. The High Court vide the 
impugned Judgment and Order dismissed the appeal preferred by 
the appellant whereas allowed the appeal preferred by the State and 
convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. 
He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 
five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default clause of the 
offence under Section 306 of IPC, while confirming the conviction 
and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court for the offence under 
Section 498-A of IPC.
5.	
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that out 
of the three cases
filed by the deceased – Raksha Devi against the 
appellant, the complaint lodged under Section 107/151 of Cr.P.C. 
was dismissed by the concerned Court on 04.04.1994, and the other 
two cases filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and FIR No. 59/93 under 
Section 498-A IPC were settled between the parties as per the Order 
dated 22.09.1994 passed by the concerned Court. According to him 
the settlement between the parties could not be treated as admission 
of guilt, on the contrary after the settlement the deceased had come to 
her matrimonial home to stay with the appellant. He further submitted 
that there were no allegations of cruelty made between the period 
June 1993 till she committed suicide on 26.09.1994 and therefore 
no presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could 
be raised against the appellant. Placing reliance of the decision of 
this Court in Hans Raj Vs. State of Haryana1 and in case of Naresh 
1	
[2004] 2 SCR 676 : (2004) 12 SCC 257
58
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Kumar vs. State of Haryana2 he submitted that the conviction could 
not be based on conjectures and surmises.
6.	
Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State 
submitted that the appellant had tried to mislead the investigation 
by stating that the deceased had taken the tablets of aluminum 
phosphide as an insecticide by mistake. He further submitted that 
the death had happened within two years of the marriage and during 
the said two years the deceased had filed three complaints against 
the appellant alleging harassment and cruelty and therefore the 
presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act was rightly 
raised by the High Court for convicting the appellant under Section 
306 of IPC. According to him though the appellant had examined 
two defense witnesses, the testimony of both the witnesses did not 
inspire any confidence.
7.	
For better appreciation of the submissions made by the learned 
counsel for the parties it would be beneficial to reproduce the 
provisions contained in Section 498-A and 306 IPC as also Section 
113A of the Indian Evidence Act. The said provisions read as under:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman 
subjecting her to cruelty. — Whoever, being the husband 
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such 
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for 
a term which may extend to three years and shall also 
be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this 
section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is 
of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit 
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or 
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) 
harassment of the woman where such harassment is with 
a view to coercing her or any person related to her to 
meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable 
security or is on account of failure by her or any person 
related to her to meet such demand.
306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits 
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, 
2	
[2024] 2 SCR 830 : (2024) 3 SCC 573
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
59
Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description 
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also 
be liable to fine. 
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).”
8.	
From the explanation to Section 498-A IPC, it is discernible that 
the word ‘Cruelty’ means, (i) any wilful conduct which is of such a 
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide (ii) any wilful 
conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to cause grave injury 
or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the 
woman; or (iii) harassment of the woman with a view to coercing 
her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for 
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her 
or any person related to
her to meet such demand. So far as the 
instant case is concerned, as per the case of the prosecution the 
appellant had subjected the deceased to Cruelty i.e. had committed 
wilful conduct which was of such a nature, that drove her to commit 
suicide. Undoubtedly, the allegations of Cruelty as contemplated 
under Section 498A have to be established beyond reasonable 
doubt. Similarly, the charge under Section 306 also has to be proved 
by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent 
evidence that the appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide 
as contemplated in Section 107 of IPC. Of course, Section 113A 
of the Evidence Act permits the Court to raise a presumption as 
to abetment of suicide, if the Suicide was committed within seven 
years of the marriage and if it is proved that she was subjected to
60
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the “Cruelty” as explained in Section 498A by her husband or the 
relative of the husband. However, for the purpose of raising the 
presumption by the Court under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 
the basic facts as contemplated in the said provision, need to be 
proved by the Prosecution.
9.	
In the light of the above legal position, if the facts of the present 
case are appreciated, it appears that there are certain facts which 
have not been disputed, rather have been duly proved by the 
prosecution. Apart from the fact of the appellant had married the 
deceased on 10.10.1992, and the deceased had given birth to a 
male child from the loins of the appellant on 18.12.1993, the filing 
of three cases by the deceased during her life time against the 
appellant, i.e. (i) FIR No. 59/1993 dated 12.07.1993 under Section 
498-A and 506 IPC; (ii) complaint/Kalendra under Section 107/151 
of Cr.P.C. dated 01.07.1993 and (iii) case under Section 125 Cr.P.C 
in May, 1994 seeking maintenance for herself and her child, is also 
not disputed. The fact of the deceased having committed suicide 
by consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide, which is supposed 
to be an insecticide, is also duly proved by the prosecution. It is 
also pertinent to note that the trial Court and the High Court have 
concurrently held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 
498-A IPC by holding that the appellant had subjected the deceased 
to cruelty.
10.	 Though it was sought to be submitted on behalf of the appellant 
that as per the suicide note Exhibit DF, the suicide was committed 
by the deceased on account of her intolerable pain and illness and 
not due to the Cruelty of the Appellant, the said contention deserves 
to be considered for rejection only. Apart from the fact that the 
said suicidal note does not appear to have been duly exhibited for 
being admitted in evidence, the fact that the appellant had not even 
bothered to inform the parents of the deceased immediately after the 
incident smacked of his guilt. The two defense witnesses claiming 
to be the neighbours of the appellant were examined to prove that 
the relationship between the appellant and his wife was cordial and 
not discordant, however they also do not inspire any confidence, in 
view of the undisputed and proved facts that the deceased had filed 
three cases against the appellant during her lifetime in respect of 
harassment and cruelty subjected to her by the Appellant.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
61
Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
11.	 In that view of the matter, the High Court has rightly raised the 
presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act to hold that 
the suicide was abetted by the Appellant. There cannot be any 
disagreement to the proposition laid down by this Court in case of 
Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana (supra) and Naresh Kumar vs. 
State of Haryana (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the 
Appellant, to submit that unlike Section 113B of the Evidence Act, a 
statutory presumption does not arise in Section 113A by operation 
of law merely on the proof of the circumstances enumerated in the 
said provision, and that Section 113A gives a discretion to the Court 
to raise a presumption. As discussed hereinabove the prosecution 
by leading cogent evidence had established that the deceased had 
committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her 
marriage and that the Appellant that is her husband had subjected 
her to cruelty as contemplated in Section 498-A of IPC. We therefore, 
do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed 
by the High Court convicting the Appellant for the offences under 
Section 498-A r/w Section 306 of IPC. 
12.	 The Appeals being devoid of merits are dismissed. Dismissed 
accordingly.
Result of the Case: Appeal dismissed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain