Write a note on the proof as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman.

Question: Write a note on the proof as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Write a note on the proof as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman.]

Answer

Section 113A deals with the question of abetment of a woman’s suicide by her husband or any of his relatives. In such cases, a presumption arises (the court may presume) that such suicide has been abetted by the husband or his relatives if the following two conditions are satisfied:-

1. The suicide was committed within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage.
2. Her husband, or his relatives, has subjected her to ‘cruelty’ (as the term is defined in Section 498A, IPC).

Such a presumption must, however, be drawn by the court after having regard to all the other circumstances of the case. Once these things are proved, abetment of suicide is presumed to exist. It will then be for the husband or his relatives to prove that the suicide in question was the woman’s personal choice.

Section 113A (inserted by 1983 Criminal Law Second Amendment Act) does not create any new offence, or any substantive right, but merely a matter of procedure and as such is retrospective in operation. In a dowry death case, the presumption that suicide was attracted by the accused-husband of the deceased could be drawn only when the prosecution has discharged the initial onus of proving cruelty.

In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal (AIR 1994 SC 1418), held that the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in dowry death cases does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498, IPC and Section 113A of the Evidence Act.

Where the wife’s suicide took place more than a month-and-a-half after the demand for dowry was met, and matters were settled, it was held that it would be unsafe, as well as unjust, to invoke the presumption of guilt under Sec. 113A [Samir v. State of West Bengal, 1993 CrLJ 134].

However, in Arjun Kusbwaha v. State o/M.P., 1999 CrLJ 2538, where the relations with the husband were strained because of dowry demands; the wife poured kerosene on herself and the husband went on with his provocative language, it was held that this amounted to the instigation of suicide.

The Supreme Court has ruled that where the presumption of the suicide of a married woman is not available, the conviction is to be based upon cogent evidence.

In Arvind Kumar v. State of M.P. [AIR 2007 SC 2674], the accused constantly harassed, humiliated and tortured his wife, the deceased, for bringing insufficient dowry and persistently made demands for bringing articles. The deceased committed suicide by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene on the body. The accused was present in the house but made no attempt to save her.

He even did not call the doctor. It was his elder brother who came out from another house who called the doctor. There were 100% burn injuries on the body of the deceased. It was held that the presumption contemplated under Section 113-A was clearly attracted in the facts of the case and the accused did not lead any evidence to rebut the said presumption and therefore the accused was guilty under Section 306, IPC for abetment of suicide and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband.

The Court as held in Rajbaba and another v. State of M.P., AIR 2008 is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which have to be considered by the Court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such a 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

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X