Wife dying within 7 years of marriage does not always attract presumption of suicide abetment under Evidence Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that merely because a woman dies by suicide within seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act is not automatically attracted to convict her husband or in-laws [Krishnapada Mahato vs State of West Bengal]..Section 113A says that the husband and in-laws of a married woman can be presumed to have abetted the suicide of the woman if she dies within seven years of the marriage and if she had been subjected to cruelty during that time..Justice Rai Chattopadhyay explained this presumption under Section 113A will be attracted only when there is prima facie evidence to show that the wife was subjected to cruelty."Merely the person committing suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage would not be sufficient to attract the said presumption of law, unless it is seen prima facie through materials that the charge sheeted accused had subjected her to cruelty," Justice Chattopadhyay held..The Court made the observation while setting aside the conviction of a husband and his relatives who were booked for allegedly driving his wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the High Court said that the trial court had erred in simply proceeding on the presumption under Section 113A only for the reason that the duration of marriage between the husband and the victim did not exceed seven years..The judge, therefore, quashed and set aside the conviction of the husband and his family members under section 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by one Krishnapada Mahato challenging a 2012 judgment convicting him and his family for the death of his wife. The father of the deceased woman had lodged a complaint against Mahato and his family members on May 30, 2010, alleging that they tortured his daughter and drove her to kill herself by consuming poison. The trial court convicted and sentenced the in-laws and the husband (Mahato) to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.This ruling was challenged by the husband and the in-laws (appellants) before the High Court. The appellants pointed out that most of the witnesses were declared hostile during the trial. They also argued that the trial court had almost no evidence before it to come to a finding that the accused-appellants were guilty. .The High Court found merit in their submissions, noting that all the witnesses of the prosecution, except the doctors and the police, have denied knowledge about any astringency, animosity or hostility in the relationship between the victim and the appellants."Also all of these witnesses have denied any knowledge regarding the cause of death of the victim. The clinical reason could be found from the evidence of doctors, i.e. consumption of poison by the victim. However, the witnesses including the complainant have not aided to the prosecution case with any oral evidence, comprehendible as a basis of the prosecution’s case," the Court observed..Justice Chattopadhyay further opined that the trial court had exercised a certain amount of 'guesswork' by recording that the victim must not have been suffering but not been in a position to disclose her agony to others."The trial Court has guessed that the reason of the victim giving birth to a female child, must have been the definite cause of her being tortured by her in-laws which according of the Court, is a general and common practice in the villages in West Bengal. The trial Court has also speculated on the fact that the witnesses were restrained from deposing actual facts in Court in consideration of the probable trouble trodden condition of the family for all future days to come," the Court stated..Terming these findings as surmises and conjunctures, the High Court emphasised that it is a settled law that every person accused of an offence is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt..The Court proceeded to allow the appeal and set aside the trial court conviction. "In absence of any oral evidence substantiating the case of the prosecution, the Court cannot decide regarding the existence of culpability of the accused persons only on the basis of the FIR. More so, the complainant merely stating that whatever is written in the FIR, are true, would not suffice for the purpose of establishing the facts through his deposition," the bench opined.With these observations, the Court acquitted the appellants..Advocate Abhra Mukherjee appeared for the appellants.Advocates PK Dutta, Santunu Deb Roy and Md Kutubuddin represented the State..[Read Judgment]