SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-116
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 23,2008

SOHAN LAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Amar Saran - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) IT is pointed out that the deceased Smt. Phoolwati has committed suicide as the appellant Sohan Lal, who was the husband of the deceased, has kept a mistress Saroj, the co-appellant and they used to harass and beat the deceased. Admittedly, it is argued that the marriage took place 12 years prior to this incident when the deceased committed suicide by setting herself to fire. Under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman only applies when the marriage has taken place 7 years prior to the date of incident and cruelty as defined under Section 498A, I.P.C. has been practised. As the present incident took place 12 years after the marriage, hence the said presumption could not apply. Moreover, there is no evidence or allegation even of abetment as defined under Section 107, I.P.C.
(3.) IN Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837 : 2002 (1) ACR 475 (SC), it has been held in paragraph 12 that before drawing the presumption that a woman may be coerced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws, it must be shown that suicide has been committed, such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and her husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. Only on the existence of the aforesaid circumstances, the Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. It was also pointed out that presumption was not mandatory, it was only permissive as the expression 'may presume' had been used. It was also observed in the aforesaid decision that for saying that an accused has abetted an offence as defined under Section 107, Indian Penal Code, it needed to be shown that the accused has instigated any person to do that thing or engaged with one or more other 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 intentionally has aided, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.