PARVEEN KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case revolves around the conviction of the appellant-husband under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim-wife, Raksha Devi, committed suicide within two years of marriage, allegedly due to cruelty inflicted by her husband. The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 498-A and reversed the acquittal under Section 306, holding the husband responsible for abetment of suicide. The judgment highlights the application of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes abetment of suicide if a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage after being subjected to cruelty.

Keywords:

Cruelty, Abetment of Suicide, Presumption under Section 113A, Aluminum Phosphide, Harassment

B) CASE DETAILS

  • i) Judgment Cause Title: Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
  • ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1014-1015 of 2013
  • iii) Judgment Date: 23rd September 2024
  • iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
  • v) Quorum: Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
  • vi) Author: Bela M. Trivedi, J.
  • vii) Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 54; 2024 INSC 717
  • viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, Sections 107/151 and 125 CrPC
  • ix) Judgments Overruled: None explicitly overruled.
  • x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Evidence Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This appeal arose from a decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 498-A IPC but acquitted him of the charge under Section 306 IPC. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 498-A and overturned the acquittal under Section 306. The prosecution established that the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty, which culminated in her suicide by consuming aluminum phosphide tablets.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. Marriage and Relationship History: The appellant married Raksha Devi on 10th October 1992. The deceased gave birth to a male child on 18th December 1993. The deceased alleged cruelty and harassment during her pregnancy, forcing her to file multiple complaints.

  2. Legal Actions by the Victim: Three complaints were filed:

    • FIR under Section 498-A and 506 IPC (1993)
    • Complaint under Section 107/151 CrPC (1993)
    • Maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC (1994)

  3. Suicide: On 26th September 1994, the deceased consumed aluminum phosphide tablets and died the same day.

  4. Post-Mortem and FIR: Post-mortem confirmed poisoning as the cause of death. The deceased’s brother filed an FIR alleging cruelty and abetment by the appellant.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether the appellant was guilty of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC?
  2. Whether the appellant abetted suicide under Section 306 IPC?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. Settlement of Complaints: The appellant argued that the complaints were amicably settled, and the victim had returned to her matrimonial home willingly.
  2. Absence of Recent Allegations: No evidence of cruelty was alleged between June 1993 and September 1994.
  3. Suicide Note: The note attributed the suicide to illness rather than the appellant’s conduct.
  4. Reliance on Precedent: The appellant cited Hans Raj v. State of Haryana ([2004] 2 SCR 676) and Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana ([2024] 2 SCR 830) to argue against presumptive guilt under Section 113A.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. Misleading Investigation: The appellant attempted to misrepresent the death as accidental poisoning.
  2. History of Harassment: The victim filed multiple complaints citing harassment and cruelty, proving a pattern of abuse.
  3. Legal Presumption under Section 113A: The death occurred within seven years of marriage, justifying a presumption of abetment due to cruelty.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

  • Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC: The evidence proved systematic cruelty, as established by the victim’s complaints and the testimony of witnesses.
  • Abetment of Suicide under Section 306 IPC: The High Court rightly applied Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, raising a presumption of abetment due to the proven cruelty.

b. Obiter Dicta:

  • The Court emphasized that settlement of prior complaints does not negate prior acts of cruelty.
  • Mere absence of recent complaints does not eliminate the history of abuse when death occurs under suspicious circumstances.

c. Guidelines:

  1. Establishment of cruelty requires consistent patterns of abusive behavior.
  2. Presumptions under Section 113A must be applied judiciously, factoring all circumstances.

I) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

  1. Hans Raj v. State of Haryana ([2004] 2 SCR 676)
  2. Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana ([2024] 2 SCR 830)

b. Important Statutes Referred:

  1. Section 498-A IPC: Punishment for cruelty by husband or his relatives.
  2. Section 306 IPC: Punishment for abetment of suicide.
  3. Section 113A of the Evidence Act: Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.
  4. Sections 107/151 CrPC: Preventive action for maintaining peace.
  5. Section 125 CrPC: Maintenance for wife and children.
Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture