IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1177/2012

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH  …. Appellant(s)       

VERSUS

SHRIRAM & ANR.  ….    Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. This  criminal  appeal  is  preferred  by  the  State  against  the

impugned  order  dated  05.11.2009  passed  by  the  High  Court  of

Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 3187 of

1999, wherein, the High Court set aside the order of conviction &

sentence passed by the Trial Court against the respondents herein.

2. The factual matrix as advanced by the prosecution, necessary

for the disposal of this case is that, one Sarita Bai was married to

respondent no. 1 on 23.04.1998. Ever since her marriage, she was

alleged  to  have  been  tortured  and  ill  treated  by  her  in-laws,

including her husband i.e. respondent no. 1 and mother-in-law i.e.

respondent no. 3.      

1

3. On  14.07.1998,  Sarita  Bai  (hereinafter  referred  to  as

‘deceased’) committed suicide at her in-laws’ (respondents) place by

consuming poison. Thereafter, investigation was conducted by the

police  and  respondents  were  charged  under  Sec.  498-A/34,

304-B/34 of IPC and alternatively under Sec. 306/34 of IPC. Trial

Court  after  examining  the  witnesses  and  evidence  available  on

record, found the respondents guilty for committing offence under

Sec. 498-A/34 and Sec. 306/34 of IPC. Therefore, vide order dated

22.11.1999, respondents were convicted and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment of 3 years for offence committed under Sec.

498-A/34  and  rigorous  imprisonment  of  5  years  for  offence

committed under Sec. 306/34  of IPC. The sentences were ordered

to run concurrently.                

4. Thereafter,  respondents  filed  a  criminal  appeal  in  the  High

Court against the order passed by Trial  Court.  By the judgment

impugned  herein,  the  High  Court  observed  that  the  Trial  Court

proceeded on assumptions against the respondents, without giving

them  any  opportunity  under  Sec.  313  of  Cr.P.C  to  defend

themselves. High Court ruled that there was no cogent or positive

evidence  on  record  to  prove  that  the  respondents  subjected  the

deceased to mental or physical cruelty or harassment, so as to force

2

her  to  commit  suicide.  Thus,  presumption  under  Sec.  113-A  of

Indian Evidence Act could not be drawn against the respondents.

Therefore, High Court vide order dated 05.11.2009, acquitted the

respondents from all charges and set aside the order of conviction

and sentence passed by the Trial Court.        

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

evidence available on record.  

6. After examining the depositions of PW-2 & PW-3, it becomes

amply clear  that  they have tried to  make improvements  in their

evidence  which  suffer  from  several  contradictions.  PW-2  made

improvements regarding demand of five thousand rupees in lieu of

the vehicle and allegations pertaining to pressurizing the deceased

by respondents, to come at the matrimonial home along-with the

new & bigger vehicle like rajdoot and not otherwise. The evidence of

PW-2 is contrary to his own statement given to the police (Ex. D-1).

Further, PW-3 admitted in his cross examination at Para-7 of his

deposition that he disclosed it for the first time before the Court

that the Respondents used to ask for a bigger vehicle and addressed

the  deceased  as  ‘kali  kaluti’  etc.  Therefore,  allegations  made  by

PW-2 & PW-3 against  the respondents  regarding ill-treatment  or

harassment of the deceased for vehicle and other things, cannot be

3

accepted as correct and true, beyond any doubt. It is to be noted,

that these allegations were made for the first time by PW-2 & PW-3,

before the Court and not earlier to the police in the merg intimation

report (Ex. P-3) or in any other report.

7. Further, It is to be noted that there is no evidence to prove

that the deceased was subjected to physical torture or beating by

the respondents. There is no evidence on record to show that the

deceased  made  any  complaint  to  her  parents  (PW-2)  or  brother

(PW-3)  about  any  physical  assault  or  torture  caused  by  the

Respondents. Further, no physical injury was found by PW-5 (Dr.

Azad  Kumar  Saravagi)  in  the  postmortem  examination  of  the

deceased.

8. Lastly,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  deceased  committed

suicide  by  consuming  poison  at  her  in-laws  place/matrimonial

home, would not itself lead to the presumption that deceased was

subjected to physical-mental cruelty, so as to force her to commit

suicide. Herein, prima facie burden lies on the prosecution to prove

the guilt of the accused/respondents beyond all reasonable doubts.

However, there is no cogent or positive evidence on record to prove

that the respondents subjected the deceased to any such mental or

physical  cruelty,  so  as  to  force  her  to  commit  suicide.  Thus,

4

presumption under Sec. 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be

drawn against the respondents in this case.                              

9. In the light of above-stated findings and reasons, the case is

devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

….……………………J               (N.V. RAMANA)

                    ..….……………………J           (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

NEW DELHI, 5th SEPTEMBER, 2018.                                         

5