Can the mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage be used as a ground for punishing the accused for the offence of abetment of suicide?

Falgu Mukati | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 25th February 2020

State of Maharashtra vs Dr. Umakant Laxman Biraris, Criminal Appeal NO.95 OF 2004  

Matter

This is a case of Dowry Death. Pratibha was married to the accused no 1 (i.e. Dr Umakant Biraris) on 8th May, 1999. Pratibha had completed her studies till 12^th standard. Pratibha’s parents (PW-1 and PW-4) had spent a considerable amount on the marriage of their daughter and also gave a sum of Rs 75,000 to the accused as dowry. Post one month into marriage Pratibha complained of acts of harassment and ill-treatment meted out towards her by the accused. The accused demanded Rs 50,000 from Pratibha as he wished to purchase a motor-cycle. Pratibha informed her parents that the accused used to beat and abuse her. Post 8-9 months after marriage the accused no 1 and Pratibha started living separately at Pale Budruk village. The accused was an alcoholic and would often beat Pratibha after drinking, and demand Rs 50,000 from her. When Pratibha got pregnant, PW-1 requested accused to send Pratibha to their house for delivery but accused refused to send Pratibha for delivery. Pratibha delivered a male child while residing at the house of accused. After 2-3 days of the birth of the child Pratibha went to her parents’ house. After 6 weeks the father of the accused came and took Pratibha and the child home. On 21st June 2001, PW-1 received information that Pratibha died due to burns. PW-1, PW-4, and their relatives rushed to the hospital where they saw the corpse of Pratibha, and later cremated her. The following day, PW-1 lodged report of incident with Kalwan

Police Station.

Appellant’s Contention

• The appellant produced evidence of seven witnesses and submitted the post-mortem report.
• It produced the statements of PW-1 and PW-4 (victims’ parents), that the accused used to beat their daughter under influence of alcohol, used to harass her and demand Rs 50,000 from her.
• It stated that the marriage took place on 8th May 1999, and the death of Pratibha took place on 21st June 2001, and therefore, there is a presumption under Section 113–A of the Indian Evidence Act as to abetment of suicide.

Respondent’s Contention (Dr. Umakant Laxman Biraris)

• PW-1 and PW-4 alleged that on one occasion when the accused along with Pratibha came to her matrimonial house the accused was beating her up. It stated that if the accused was actually beating their daughter then what steps did PW-1 and PW-4 take further.
• It stated that PW-1, had admitted that he did not tell the police that he kept his wife (PW-4) in the house of accused to take care of Pratibha and he returned to the village.
• It stated that PW-1 admitted that although Pratibha had informed him of the misconduct and ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused, he did not inform of this to any of the relatives, including Mr Vasant Pawar, who was also living in the same village as the family of accused.
• It stated that PW-1 and PW-4 also admits that he never lodged any complaint to the police about accused ill-treating Pratibha and demanding money to buy motor-cycle. PW-1 also admits that he never informed the Police Patil or Sarpanch or other respectable persons of village Pale Budruk to persuade accused not to take liquor.
• It submitted that PW-2 (Police Patil) stated that relative of Pratibha ever complained to him about the conduct of accused, also, he never noticed existence of any matrimonial dispute between accused and Pratibha.
• It submitted that PW-3 (panch witness and neighbour of the accused) stated that Pratibha used to frequently quarrel with the accused as the accused used to financially support his parents.
• It stated that according to the judgment of the Apex Court in Hans Raj vs State of Haryana, that under Section 113–A of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has first to establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, which in this case is not disputed and that her husband had subjected her to cruelty.
• It submitted that Section 113-A gives a discretion to the Court to raise such a presumption, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, one of which is whether the alleged cruelty was of such nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman.
• It stated that if there is an allegation of cruelty upon the accused then the burden of proving it lies upon the appellant. The mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband.
• It pointed out that the post-mortem report did not indicate of any external physical injury to Pratibha and therefore, it is difficult to accept that Pratibha was being beaten and treated with such cruelty that could drive her to commit suicide.

Issues Raised

• The main issue that arises in this case is that the mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage be used as a ground for punishing the accused for the offence of abetment of suicide  

Held

• In my view, the opinion of the Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. I cannot find any fault with the judgment of the Trial Court.