Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Cruelty and Abetment of Suicide in Matrimonial Case: Parveen Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (23 September 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 717
Judges: Bela M. Trivedi, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
Can a husband be convicted for abetment of suicide if his wife commits suicide within seven years of marriage, and there is evidence of cruelty? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, upholding the conviction of a husband for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with the conviction for cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. The court examined the legal implications of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows for a presumption of abetment of suicide in certain circumstances. This judgment clarifies the responsibilities of husbands in matrimonial relationships and the legal consequences of cruelty leading to suicide. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Case Background

Parveen Kumar married Raksha Devi on 10 October 1992. Raksha Devi gave birth to a son on 18 December 1993, at her parental home. The prosecution’s case was that Parveen Kumar used to beat his wife, even when she was pregnant. Due to this, she went to her parental home and filed a First Information Report (FIR) No. 59 of 1993 on 12 September 1993, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Ghumarwin Police Station. She also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking maintenance and another complaint under Sections 107/151 of the Cr.P.C.

In May 1994, Parveen Kumar brought his wife back to their matrimonial home. On 22 September 1994, Raksha Devi stated in court during the Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings that she did not want to pursue the matter as she was living happily with her husband. She allegedly made a similar statement regarding her other complaint. However, on 26 September 1994, Raksha Devi consumed aluminum phosphide tablets at about 1:45 a.m. She was admitted to the hospital but died at 5:00 a.m. on the same day.

The Station House Officer (SHO) recorded her death in the daily diary register. The SHO sent her body for post-mortem. On 1 October 1994, Raksha Devi’s brother, Madan Lal (PW-3), filed FIR No. 97 of 1994 at the Bhoranj Police Station, alleging that Parveen Kumar had subjected his sister to cruelty, which forced her to commit suicide. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against Parveen Kumar under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court of Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, convicted Parveen Kumar under Section 498A of the IPC, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, but acquitted him of the charge under Section 306 of the IPC vide its judgment dated 24 February 2000.

Aggrieved by the Sessions Court’s judgment, Parveen Kumar filed Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2000 against his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC. The State of Himachal Pradesh also filed Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2000 against the acquittal of Parveen Kumar under Section 306 of the IPC. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Parveen Kumar’s appeal but allowed the State’s appeal, convicting him under Section 306 of the IPC. The High Court sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000 for the offense under Section 306 of the IPC, while confirming the Sessions Court’s conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the IPC.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. It states:
  
  “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.”
  
  The explanation of the term “cruelty” includes:
  • Any willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide.
  • Any willful conduct likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical).
  • Harassment to coerce her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security.
• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with abetment of suicide. It states:
  
  “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 fine.”
• Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act: This section allows the court to presume abetment of suicide by a married woman under certain conditions. It states:
  
  “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.”
  
  The explanation clarifies that “cruelty” has the same meaning as in Section 498A of the IPC.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the three cases filed by Raksha Devi against the appellant were either dismissed or settled. The complaint under Sections 107/151 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 04 April 1994, and the other two cases under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and FIR No. 59/93 under Section 498A of the IPC were settled on 22 September 1994.
• The settlement should not be seen as an admission of guilt. Instead, after the settlement, Raksha Devi returned to her matrimonial home to live with the appellant.
• There were no allegations of cruelty between June 1993 and the date of suicide, 26 September 1994. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act should not be raised against the appellant.
• The conviction should not be based on conjectures and surmises, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana [2004(12) SCC 257] and Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana [2024 (3) SCC 573].

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the appellant misled the investigation by claiming that Raksha Devi consumed aluminum phosphide tablets by mistake.
• The death occurred within two years of the marriage, and during this period, Raksha Devi had filed three complaints against the appellant, alleging harassment and cruelty. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act was rightly raised by the High Court.
• Although the appellant examined two defense witnesses, their testimony did not inspire confidence.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in raising a presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, based on the evidence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana [2004(12) SCC 257] – Supreme Court of India: The appellant’s counsel relied on this case to argue that convictions should not be based on conjectures and surmises. The Supreme Court acknowledged this principle but distinguished it from the facts of the present case, where sufficient evidence was present.
• Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana [2024 (3) SCC 573] – Supreme Court of India: Similar to the above case, the appellant cited this to argue against convictions based on conjectures. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle but found it inapplicable in the present case due to the established facts.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered the definition of “cruelty” under this section, noting that it includes conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide.
• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered the provision for abetment of suicide, noting that it is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years.
• Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act: The court examined the conditions under which a presumption of abetment of suicide can be raised, specifically when a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and has been subjected to cruelty.

Authority Usage Table

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the authorities cited by both parties. The court acknowledged the principles laid down in Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana [2004(12) SCC 257] and Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana [2024 (3) SCC 573], which stated that convictions should not be based on conjectures. However, the court found that these principles were not applicable in this case because the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.

The court emphasized that the prosecution had established that the deceased had committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and had been subjected to cruelty by her husband as defined under Section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, the court upheld the High Court’s decision to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The fact that the deceased had filed three cases against the appellant during her lifetime, alleging harassment and cruelty.
• The fact that the suicide occurred within two years of the marriage.
• The appellant’s attempt to mislead the investigation by claiming that the deceased had consumed the insecticide by mistake.
• The court’s finding that the testimony of the defense witnesses did not inspire confidence.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was a combination of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The factual analysis focused on the events leading up to the suicide, including the complaints filed by the deceased and the circumstances of her death. The legal interpretation focused on the application of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act and the definition of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the suicide was due to the deceased’s illness, as suggested by the alleged suicide note. However, the court rejected this interpretation, noting that the suicide note was not properly exhibited as evidence and that the appellant’s failure to inform the deceased’s parents immediately after the incident indicated guilt.

The court concluded that all the necessary conditions for raising the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act were met. The court stated, “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.”

The court also stated, “In that view of the matter, the High Court has rightly raised the presumption under Section 113 A of the Evidence Act to hold that the suicide was abetted by the Appellant.”

The court further added, “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.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. Both Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma agreed on the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment reinforces the legal principle that cruelty by a husband towards his wife, leading to suicide within seven years of marriage, can result in a presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The court’s emphasis on the importance of establishing the factual basis for raising the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The judgment highlights the seriousness with which the courts treat cases of matrimonial cruelty and abetment of suicide.
• The decision underscores the importance of proper investigation and evidence collection in such cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that if a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage, and it is proven that her husband subjected her to cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC, the court may presume that the suicide was abetted by her husband under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.

This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the presumption of abetment of suicide in cases of matrimonial cruelty. It clarifies that while the court has discretion in raising the presumption, this discretion must be exercised judiciously based on the facts of the case. There is no change in the previous position of the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Parveen Kumar, upholding the High Court’s decision to convict him under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the prosecution had successfully established that Raksha Devi committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and was subjected to cruelty by her husband. Therefore, the court upheld the High Court’s decision to raise the presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment reinforces the legal principles surrounding matrimonial cruelty and abetment of suicide, emphasizing the importance of protecting women from domestic violence.