Conditions that can lead to a presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman under Section 113A of the Evidence Act: Supreme Court

IN THE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 940 941 OF 2021 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONNOS. 2860 2861 OF 2019 GUMANSINH @ LALO @ RAJU BHIKHABHAI CHAUHAN & ANR THE STATE OF GUJARAT VERSUS JUDGMENT KRISHNA MURARI J These appeals arise out of final order and judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabaddated 28.12.2018 corrected vide order dated 08.02.2019 in R Criminal Appeal No 8300 and final order and judgment dated 07.03.2019 in Criminal Misc Application No. 1 of 2019 filed by the appellants challenging the order of conviction against them. LL 2021 SC 415 By the said judgment the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein challenging the judgment dated 27.07.2000 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 998 convicting the appellant in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Codeis In brief the prosecution case is that the marriage of Appellant No. 1 was solemnized with Tahera on 27.04.1997 and after the marriage the deceased was residing with both the appellants. The Appellant No.1 was constantly asking the deceased to bring Rs.25 000 from her fatherin order to purchase buffaloes as he was keen on doing milk business. Due to poor financial condition PW 1 was not able to satisfy the demand of Appellant No. 1. Therefore Appellant No.1 frequently started beating the deceased while Appellant No. 2 who was her mother in law used to pick up quarrel with her on the pretext that she neither knew how to cook nor do any house hold work properly. The deceased committed suicide on 14.12.1997 between 17:00 and 17:30 hours by consuming poison at her matrimonial home for the sole reason that she was unable to bear the continuous mental and physical cruelty meted out to her by the appellants in a short span of 8 months LL 2021 SC 415 The PW 1 father of the deceased filed a complaint with Padra Police Station which was registered as ICR No. 397 for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 read with Section 114 of the IPC. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Padra who committed the case to the Court of Sessions The case was registered as Sessions Case No. 998 and was made over to the Learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial. Charges were framed and against the appellants and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate the case the prosecution has examined seven witnesses and all the incriminating evidence was put to the appellants while recording their statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code wherein they totally denied the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Appellants subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty which lead her to commit suicide and convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 500 as well as two years Rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 500 LL 2021 SC 415 Aggrieved by the same the accused appellants filed an appeal before the High Court and mainly contended that there was no demand of money by Appellant No. 1 as he was only asking for loan to purchase buffaloes in order to start milk business. It was further contended that the deceased was under medical treatment as she was suffering from some mental illness. It was pointed out that only relatives were examined as witnesses though independent witnesses were available and therefore the prosecution case becomes doubtful It was further contended that the appellants were not present in the house when the deceased committed and prayed for the appeal to be allowed and the conviction of the appellants be set aside. However the High Court observed that the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly indicates the deceased was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the appellants on the account of non fulfillment of demand of Rs.25 000 and therefore the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court was confirmed 10. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Section 498 A IPC and Section 306 IPC the accused have preferred these appeals. Ms. Akriti Chaubey learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the conviction as recorded by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court is not tenable. It is submitted that the evidence of the material witnesses LL 2021 SC 415 suffer from major contradictions and there was no demand of any money by the appellant No.1 because he was only asking for loan to purchase buffaloes with an intention to start milk business. She further submitted that the deceased was suffering from some mental illness for which she was under medical treatment Her further submission is that only close relatives were examined as witnesses and there was no independent witness Per contra Ms. Deepanwita Priyanaka learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below as such no interference is warranted. It is further submitted that all the ingredients necessary for conviction under Section 306 IPC stands proved with the aid of Section 113 A of the Evidence Act 1872 as such the present appeals deserved to be dismissed We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses with the aid of learned counsel for the parties It is undisputed that the suicidal death of the deceased occurred within a short span of eight months of marriage. Section 113 A of the Evidence Act provides for presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman within LL 2021 SC 415 seven years of marriage by her husband or any of his relative. The said section reads as under : “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 Codeany willful 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 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.” LL 2021 SC 415 The prosecution case was that the marriage of the deceased who was the daughter of the complainant was solemnized with appellant no. 1 around eight months before the alleged incident and thereafter she was residing in her matrimonial home along with her husband the appellant no.1 and mother in law the appellant no. 2. For about two months they had a peaceful life thereafter the appellant no. 1 started pressing deceased to bring Rs.25 000 from her father to purchase buffaloes as he was interested in starting business of milk. It was further stated that the complainant PW 1 was unable to satisfy the demand on account of his weak financial condition. When the demand of Rs.25 000 could not be met by the complainant the appellant no.1 started beating the deceased and appellant no. 2 the mother in law also used to quarrel with her on the pretext that she was not knowing cooking and was not doing household work properly. On account of physical and mental cruelty meted out to her during a short span of eight months of marriage when it became unbearable she committed suicide on 14.12.1997 between 17:00 and 17:30 hours by consuming poison at her matrimonial home 16. Aforesaid complaint lodged by PW 1 the father of the deceased was registered vide I C.R.No. 341 of 1997 for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code LL 2021 SC 415 17. A perusal of evidence of PW 1 Mustufa Chhotubhai Ghori the father of the deceased would establish that deceased was married to appellant no. 1 eight months prior to the alleged incident. He stated in his testimony that the married life of the two was smooth for initial two months however after two months of the marriage the appellant no. 1 started insisting Tahirato ask for a sum of Rs.25 000 from PW 1 to purchase buffaloes for milk business but he was unable to pay the said amount as he was earning his livelihood by running a tea stall and was also indebted. He also stated that since he could not fulfill the demand because of his weak financial position his deceased daughter was ill treated and beaten frequently by appellant no.1. He further stated that the appellant no. 2 the mother in law of the deceased also started quarreling on the pretext that the deceased could not make chapatti properly nor could she do the household work and her father has not taught her anything. He also stated that the deceased used to share her trauma with her motherwho in turn used to tell her everything. He further stated that the son in law was very suspicious and he did not let Tahirato go alone to any place and used to beat her. He also stated that lastly appellant no. 2 came to his house along with the deceased and demanded Rs.500 from his wifeas her husband was to go to Ajmer. He also stated that in the night at about 1:30A.M. PW 3 his brother came and informed about the death of the deceased. In the cross examination his testimony was unshaken. Though during cross examination it was tried to be elicited from this witness that deceased was suffering from some LL 2021 SC 415 kind of illness prior to marriage and was undergoing some treatment. The witnesses admitted in the cross examination that the deceased was suffering from some pain and his wife used to take her for treatment and was given medicine. Apart from above neither the nature of illness nor the details of the treatment or medication could be elicited from this witness. As a matter of fact there was not even a suggestion by the defence that deceased was suffering from any kind of mental illness or undergoing treatment for the same 18. The evidence of PW 1 stands corroborated by the evidence of PW 4 Dariyaben Mustufa Ghori the mother of the deceased as well as PW 3 Ahmadbhai Chhotubhai Ghori the brother of complainant and PW 5 Hanif Mustufa Ghori brother of the deceased It is pertinent to mention that much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the appellants on the cross examination of PW 1 wherein he stated that even before marriage the deceased was undergoing treatment and medication. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the deceased was suffering from some mental disease and was undergoing treatment and her mental instability might have resulted in suicide. The argument is not liable to be accepted inasmuch as neither any evidence was produced by the defence in this regard nor anything about the illness or medication was stated by them in their statement under Section 313. The deceased lived in her LL 2021 SC 415 matrimonial home with the appellants for about eight months after marriage and if she was undergoing any prolonged treatment it was not possible for the appellants not to have acquired knowledge of the said facts It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that all the witnesses are relative and interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the case thus the prosecution case 21. Most often the offence of subjecting the married woman to cruelty is committed within the boundaries of the house which in itself diminishes the chances of availability of any independent witness and even if an independent witness is available whether he or she would be willing to be a witness in the case is also a big question because normally no independent or unconnected person would prefer to become a witness for a number of reasons. There is nothing unnatural for a victim of domestic cruelty to share her trauma with her parents brothers and sisters and other such close relatives. The evidentiary value of the close relatives interested witness is not liable to be rejected on the ground of being a relative of the deceased. Law does not disqualify the relatives to be produced as a witness though they may be interested witness LL 2021 SC 415 22. However when the Court has to appreciate the evidence of any interested witness it has to be very cautious in weighing their evidence or in other words the evidence of an interested witness requires a scrutiny with utmost care and caution. The Court is required to address itself whether there are any infirmities in the evidence of such a witness whether the evidence is reliable trust worthy and inspires the confidence of the Court. Another important aspect to be considered while analyzing the evidence of interested witness is whether the genesis of the crime unfolded by such evidence is probable or not. If the evidence of any interested witness relative on a careful scrutiny by the Court is found to be consistent and trust worthy free from infirmities or any embellishment that inspires the confidence of the Court there is no reason not to place reliance on the same 23. A three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Maranadu and Anr. Vs State by Inspector of Police Tamil Nadu1 while considering this issue has observed as under: “Merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness the same has to be established Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution 116 SCC 529 LL 2021 SC 415 “….Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 11. In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjabit has been laid down as under: 26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause such as enmity against the accused to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." The above decision has since been followed in Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of RajasthanSCC 698) in which Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madraswas also relied upon 13. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness should not be relied upon has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh s casein which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses Speaking through Vivian Bose J. it was observed 25.We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses LL 2021 SC 415 requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in `Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 at p.59). We find however that it unfortunately still persists if not in the judgments of the Courts at any rate in the arguments of counsel 14. Again in Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P.this Court observed:Lehna v. State of HaryanaSCC 76) and Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of OrissaSCC 381).” In the case at hands PW 1 2 3 and 4 though they are related to the deceased are natural witnesses. There being no bar in examining the family members or any other person as witnesses their evidence is not liable to be discarded on this ground. From a perusal of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses we find that it is consistent without any material contradiction and inspires confidence. The Courts below have also properly scrutinized their LL 2021 SC 415 evidence prior to taking them into account and there is nothing unusual in believing their testimonies Thus from the evidence of the prosecution witness we have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has proved that the deceased was harassed with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of Rs.25 000 and such a harassment was on account of failure by her to bring the said amount from her fatherof Section 498 A IPC 26. Suicidal death by consuming pesticide stands affirmed by the evidence of PW 2 Dr. Anand who was one of the panel members of doctors who carried out post mortem of the deceased. He stated in his cross examination that : “On 15 12 1997 I was serving as the PMC medical officer at Gandhi. At noon 3 15 hours the dead body of Tahera Gumansinh Chauhan was brought to be and the time was around 3 30 hours. In the panel doctor was Dr. Rolisharan and he is at present at the Rajkot Medical College. While checking the dead body as for the internal injuries on the legs the threads were placed. There was normal injury on the right thigh. There was no other external injury that could prove that the death occurred due to beating. Even thereafter the stomach was opened and the particular that came out had plunging smell. The samples of her intestine liver kidney and blood were obtained and were sent for analysis at the forensic science laboratory Ahmedabad so LL 2021 SC 415 that the actual facts could be known. This analysis report was sent by the forensic department to us. One was sent to police station. But I have not received a copy. Therefore I can give further deposition if the copy of police is shown to me. I am as on today shown the mark 8 9 being the papers of the prosecution and upon seeing I state that in the intestine of the deceased the poisonous pesticide Diazinon Organophosphate was found. This proves that the death of Taheraben had occurred due to consuming of poison. The panel doctor along with me undertook the post mortem of deceased. I am shown the mark 8 7 PM report and we both doctors have prepared the same. The doctor along with me has signed it in my presence. It has my signature. I identify the same. It is given exhibit 17.” His statement was intact in the cross examination and nothing contradictory could be elicited from him 27. Now the question that falls for our consideration is the prosecution having successfully established the charge of cruelty as laid down in Explanation of Section 498 A IPC and also the fact that the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticide within seven years of marriage whether the accused can also be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC with the aid of Section 113 A of the Evidence Act In the case at hands the prosecution failed to adduce any direct evidence to establish that the accused abetted deceased into committing suicide. The prosecution has placed reliance on Section 113 A of the Evidence Act to establish the charge of abetment against the accused LL 2021 SC 415 Section 107 of IPC describes offence of abetment as under: “Section 107 of IPC 107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing who— First) — Instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly) —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing or Thirdly) — Intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who by wilful misrepresentation or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A a public officer is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B knowing that fact and also that C is not Z wilfully represents to A that C is Z and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.—Whoever either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act and thereby facilitate the commission thereof is said to aid the doing of Section 306 of IPC provides punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide reads as under: “306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to LL 2021 SC 415 This question came up for consideration before a three Judge Bench in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh2. In pragraph 12 of the said judgment it has been observed as under : “This provision was introduced by Criminal Lawwoman has committed suicide such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage the husband or his relatives who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances the Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. The Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly the presumption is not mandatory it is only permissive as the employment of expression "may presume" suggests Secondly the existence and availability of the above said three circumstances shall not like a formula enable the presumption being drawn before the presumption may be drawn the Court shall have to have regard to all the other circumstances of the case . A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the Court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression The other circumstances of the case used in Section 113 A suggests the need to reach a cause and effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been 2 9 SCC 618 LL 2021 SC 415 raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase May presume used in Section 113 A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act which says whenever it is provided by this Act that Court may presume a fact it may either regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved or may call for proof of it.” From the above observations it becomes clear that to attract the applicability of Section 113 A of the Evidence Act three conditions are required to be fulfilled : i. The woman has committed suicide ii. Such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage iii. The charged accused had subjected her to cruelty From the facts of the case at hands all the three conditions stand fulfilled There is no dispute about the facts that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and charged accused had subjected her to cruelty as we have confirmed the findings of the Trial Court as well as High Court that prosecution has been successful in proving the charge of cruelty under Explanationof Section 498 A IPC It is no doubt correct that the existence and availability of the above said three circumstances are not to be invoked like a formula to enable the LL 2021 SC 415 presumption being drawn and the presumption is not an irrebuttable one as held by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of 35. At this stage we may also make a reference to Section 4 of the Evidence Act which defines the phrase ‘may presume’ used in Section 113 A which reads as under : “Shall Presume whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved.” The above definition of the words ‘may presume’ makes it clear that whenever the act provides that the Court may presume a fact the said fact is to be regarded as proved unless and until it is disproved 37. Admittedly in the case at hands the evidence clearly establishes the offence of cruelty or harassment caused to the deceased and thus the foundation for the presumption exists. Admittedly the appellants have led no evidence to rebut the presumption Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case it can be safely concluded that the Courts below committed no illegality in holding that the LL 2021 SC 415 accused appellants abetted the suicide of the deceased. The matter can be viewed from another angle. The prosecution was successful in establishing the charge under Section 498 A of cruelty against the appellants from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticides. The deceased was in the custody of the appellant and died within the four walls of her matrimonial home under suspicious 39. A two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Vithal Patil Vs State of Karnataka & Ors.3 in almost identical facts and circumstances has observed in paragraph 26 of the judgment as under: “Moreover admittedly the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. Section 113 A of the Evidence Act is therefore clearly attracted to this case. Presumption contemplated therein must spring in action. This provision was introduced by Criminal Law Second Amendment Act 1983 to resolve the difficulty of proof where married women are forced to commit suicide but incriminating evidence is difficult to get as it is usually available within the four walls of the matrimonial home. In this case the prosecution has led evidence to establish cruelty and harassment caused to the deceased which is rightly taken into account by the High Court. Thus the foundation for the presumption exists. The appellant however has led no evidence to rebut the presumption Therefore it can be safely concluded in the facts of this case that the appellant abetted the suicide of the 3 11 SCC 516 LL 2021 SC 415 40. Reference may also to be made to the following observations of this Court in the case of Satish Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka4 : “Once the prosecution succeeds in establishing the component of cruelty leading to conviction under Section 498 A in our view only in a rare case the Court can refuse to invoke the presumption of abetment if other requirements of Section 113 A 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 & Anr. Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao & Ors.5.” In the case of K. Prema S. Raothis Court while holding that in view of Section 215 Cr.PC ommission to frame charge under Section 306 IPC has not resulted in any failure of justice and thus there was no necessity to remit the matter to the Trail Court for framing the charge under Section 306 IPC and direct a retrial for that charge. It further went on to observe as under: Section 306 “The same facts found in cruel treatment of his wife make out a case against him under IPC of having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. The appellant was charged for an offence of higher degree causing "dowry death" under Section 304B which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment of and maximum for life. Presumption under Section 113A the Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 498A 4 12 SCC 759 5 14 SCC 264 LL 2021 SC 415 43. On the contrary in the case at hands the following charge was framed against the accused appellants vide order dated 29.05.2000 by the Trial Court : within a period of seven years of her marriage subjected her to cruelty and harassment for all in connection with demand for dowry and thereby committed an offence of dowry death punishable under section 304Bof the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.” 38. It would thus be seen that the charge does not state that the deceased was driven to commit suicide on account of the harassment meted out to the deceased. It also does not mention that the accused had abetted in commission of suicide by the deceased. In that view of the matter we are of the considered view that the cases wherein conversion is held to be permissible are clearly distinguishable.” I Mr. A.C. Modi Vadodara District Additional Sessions Judge hereby frame charges against both of you the accused that The marriage of the accused no. 1 took place with Taheraben and therefore Taheraben and both accused resided together. The accused no. 1 used to undertake milk business the accused no. 1 asked regularly Taheraben to brin an amount of Rs.25 000 from her father for the purchase of milk. But as Taheraben had the idea of financial condition of her father she could not fulfill the demand. Due to this the accused no.1 used to time and again beat up Taheraben. Meanwhile the accused no.2 being the mother in law of Taheraben she used to remark that Taheraben was not doing household work in a proper manner is not cooking food properly and thereby in such a manner the accused no. 1 was wrongly incited by the accused no 2 and thus Taheraben was beaten. In this manner you both the accused within a span of eight months of marriage casued mental and physical harassment LL 2021 SC 415 to Taheraben made her life worse created a situation whereby she wished for death and due to your such behaviour left with no other option in order to end her life on 14 12 1997 from 17:00 hours to 17:30 hours Taheraben consumed pesticide at Medhad village thereby committed suidcide and hence she died In this manner you both the accused have abetted the suicide of Taheraben and thereby have committed the crime under Sections 306 498 A and 114 of the IPC I hereby declare to held judicial proceedings against you as for the same.” Thus it would be seen that not only a specific charge was framed against the accused appellants on one hand the defence failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 113 A and on the other hand the prosecution was successful in establishing the evidence that the deceased was left with no choice than to commit suicide. A reference may be made to the oral testimony of PW 3 the uncle of the deceased the relevant part of his examination in chief is extracted here under: “After marriage Tahera went to reside at her matrimonial house. At the matrimonial house of Tahera resided her husband Gumansinh father in law mother in law and sister in law named Madhu. The marriage life of Tahera went properly for a period of two or two and half months of marriage. Gumansinh was suspicious by nature. He did not let Tahera go alone anywhere. He would go with Tahera due to his suspicious nature. He did not let her talk with anyone and would do inquiry as to such things. He would ask Tahera to bring Rs.25 000 from her father as he wished to purchase buffaloes and do business of milk. Tahera would state that his father has a tea stall and there was debt on LL 2021 SC 415 him how could he give money! Thus as the amount was not given Gumansinh used to beat Tahera quarrel with her and thereby physically and mentally harass her. The mother in law of Tahera would state that Tahera did not cook well she did not do work properly. The mother in law of Tahera would instigate the husband of Tahera and thus she would create a quarrel between them. I used to go to the house of my brother Mustufa regularly for my business purpose. At that place Tahera told these things time and again these were told to me by brother and sister in law. Tahera had come to meet me for 5 7 times and she also told me these “On Monday Mustufa talked with me that from Medadh that Tahera and her mother in law arrived at his house The mother in law of Tahera asked that they be given buffaloes while purchasing them from Isamil. Or else an amount of Rs.5000 be given. But Tahera’s mother denied doing this. They further stated that the father in law of Tahera was going to Ajmer and thus an amount of Rs.500 be given. This amount of Rs.500 was given to Dariyaben the mother in law of Tahera. He further stated on the phone that the harassment is going on increasing now. Due to which Tahera had asked that uncle be informed that she cannot take it anymore the harassment is going on and thus she should be taken On the second day my mother Sakina my wife Rashida and I i.e. we three persons went to Medhad in three wheeler tempo. We meet the mother in law of Tahera at that place The mother in law of Tahera told me that son of her elder brother was to be operated and he has to go to hospital. We asked her to send Tahera with us and she replied that the father in law of Tahera was to go to Ajmer due to which she should be returned. Thereafter I brought Tahera to my house at Bhoj. Tahera remained at my house for a period of 2 3 days and Tahera told me that even now she is harassed Even now Gumansinh is seeking the amount and he is beating her. Moreover her mother in law is even stating that Tahera is not cooking well and that she does not do work properly. Thus her mother in law would in some other manner start a quarrel with her and make Gumansinh beat LL 2021 SC 415 her. Tahera told me that she will not be able to keep up with it if this goes on and that she will not return. The father in law of Tahera was to go to Ajmer and therefore we told Tahera that these sorrowful days will pass thereby sent her to her matrimonial house. I told her that I will not send her if further harassment would be kept. I explained her this thing and sent her to her matrimonial house She was dropped to her matrimonial house at Medadh by my son and other two persons in the Tempo. Thereafter on that very night at 11:00 to 11:30 hours Fatmaben being the mother in law of Tahera and vikram being the son in law of Fatmaben along with another one man arrived at my house They told me that Tahera consumed poison and therefore has expired. I told these people to inform this to her father Mustufa thereafter I searched for a vehicle and went to inform this thing to my brother Mustufa at Fertilizernagar. I also informed this to my other brother Usman who resided at Tandalja and also informed this to others. I told my brother to inform this to all and went to the house of my brother Musfufa. I informed him that Tahera has expired in her matrimonial house as she consumed poison … The testimony of this witness was unshaken during cross examination and nothing contrary could be elicited from him and thus we find no fault with the Trial Court and the Appellate Court placing reliance on the evidence in drawing the presumption under Section 113 A particularly when there was no material brought on record by the defence to disprove the facts 46. Both the Trial Court as well as the High Court have threadbare considered the evidence and have recorded cogent reasons to come to the conclusion that LL 2021 SC 415 the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt 47. Having gone through the relevant facts and the reasonings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court we are not persuaded to take a different view. Thus we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are therefore dismissed S. ABDUL NAZEER NEW DELHI 03RD SEPTEMBER 2021 LL 2021 SC 415

Summary: In the matter of Gumansinh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan Vs. State Of Gujrat  LL 2021 SC 415 the Supreme Court augmented that three circumstances must be met in order for Section 113-A of the Evidence Act to be applicable: The bench stated that if all three elements are met, a presumption can be drawn against the accused, and if he is unable to rebut the presumption with proof, he can be convicted. The prosecution’s case against the accused was that his wife committed suicide at her matrimonial home by ingesting poison because she couldn’t stand the constant emotional and physical abuse she was receiving from him and his relatives. This all transpired in a matter of eight months. The accused was found guilty under Indian Penal Code Sections 498A (Cruelty) and 306 (Abettement to Suicide) by the Trial Court. The conviction was upheld by the High Court of the United Kingdom. 
The accused argued before the Supreme Court that all of the witnesses are relatives and interested witnesses and that the prosecution examined no independent witness to substantiate the case, making the prosecution case suspect. In this regard, the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari remarked that the close relatives’/interested witness’s evidential value is not likely to be dismissed on the basis of being a deceased relative. The Court stated, “Most often the offence of subjecting the married woman to cruelty is committed within the boundaries of the house which in itself diminishes the chances of availability of any independent witness and even if an independent witness is available whether he or she would be willing to be a witness in the case is also a big question because normally no independent or unconnected person would prefer to become a witness for a number of reasons. There is nothing unnatural for a victim of domestic cruelty to share her trauma with her parents, brothers and sisters and other such close relatives. The evidentiary value of the close relatives/interested witness is not liable to be rejected on the ground of being a relative of the deceased. Law does not disqualify the relatives from being produced as a witness though they may be an interested witness.” The bench stated that the Court must value the testimony of an interested witness and must use extreme caution when considering their testimony. Any interested witness must be examined with extreme care and caution. The Court held the opinion that, “The Court is required to address itself whether there are any infirmities in the evidence of such a witness; whether the evidence is reliable, trust-worthy and inspires the confidence of the Court. Another important aspect of being considered while analyzing the evidence of interested witness is whether the genesis of the crime unfolded by such evidence is probable or not. If the evidence of any interested witness/relative on a careful scrutiny by the Court is found to be consistent and trust-worthy, free from infirmities or any embellishment that inspires the confidence of the Court, there is no reason not to place reliance on the same.” The Court used Section 4 of the Evidence Act’s meaning of “shall presume” and held,  “The above definition of the words ‘may presume’ makes it clear that whenever the act provides that the Court may presume a fact, the said fact is to be regarded as proved, unless and until it is disproved.”