RAM PYAREYversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

           [2025] 1 S.C.R. 484 : 2025 INSC 71

                       Ram Pyarey
                             v.
                The State of Uttar Pradesh
              (Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015)
                        09 January 2025
        [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Correctness of the order of conviction against the brother-in-law for
the offences punishable u/ss.306, 498-A IPC and s.4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, in the absence of any cogent evidence.

                            Headnotes†
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of
suicide by a married women – Invocation of s.113A – When –
Deceased died on account of severe burn injuries, by setting
herself on fire – Order of conviction and sentence of the
appellant-brother-in-law u/ss.306 and 498 IPC and s.4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, however, acquitted for the offence
punishable u/s.304B IPC – Correctness:
Held: When the courts below want to apply s.113A, the condition
precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as
regards cruelty and harassment – In the absence of any cogent
evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like
aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightway invoke s.113A and
presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide – No
evidence on the basis of which it could be said that the brother-
in-law abetted the commission of suicide – Judgment and order of
conviction passed by courts below set aside – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss.306, 498-A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – s.4. [Paras 11, 13, 14]

                           List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Evidence Act, 1872.

                        List of Keywords
Abetment to suicide; Presumption as to dowry death; Presumption
as to abetment to suicide; Cogent evidence as regards harassment
or abetment.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                         485

                Ram Pyarey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh


                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     1408 of 2015
     From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2013 of the High Court of
     Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CRLA No. 401 of 1993

                        Appearances for Parties
     Bharat Bhushan, Keshav Bansal, Advs. for the Appellant.
     K. Parmeshwar, Sr. Adv/A.A.G., Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar,
     Ms. Ruchil Raj, Advs. for the Respondent.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Order

1.   This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the
     High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 6th
     August, 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 1993 by which the
     High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein
     and three other co-accused and thereby affirmed the judgment
     and order of conviction passed by the trial court for the offence
     punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal
     Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Dowry
     Prohibition Act, 1961.
2.   It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein is
     the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased. The deceased was married
     to one Ram Sajeevan.
3.   It is the case of the prosecution that there was harassment at the
     end of the husband, in-laws and the appellant (Jeth) herein to the
     deceased.
4.   The deceased doused herself with kerosene and set herself on
     fire on 27-09-1990. She died on account of severe burn injuries.
     The father of the deceased lodged a First Information Report with
     the Ajgain Police Station, District Unnao on the very same day.
     The gist of the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased
     reads thus:-
486                                                     [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


       “To,
       SHO, Police Station Ajgain,
       District Unnao:
       Sir,
       It is respectfully submitted that the complainant Shiv Prasad
       Sahu, S/o. Laxman Sahu is resident of Village Bhakat,
       P.S. Kotwali, District Unnao. That the father in law Lal
       Bahadur., S/o. Jugnu, Village Sambhar Kheda, Majra
       Nana Tikur, P.S. Ajgain, Distt. Unnao took my daughter
       Kusum with him on 25.09.1990. That in the intervening
       night of 26.09.1990 and 27.09.1990 my daughter was
       killed by burning by her in-laws. Before this they were
       demanding the buffalo and gold chain in dowry after
       marriage. And told my daughter Kusum Devi if you will
       not give the dowry then we will kill you. They threatened
       her. On that I did not send her to her matrimonial house
       for one year and on 25.09.1990 my daughter was
       went to her matrimonial house alongwith her father
       in law Lal Bahadur, Son of Jugnu. They said that she
       is our responsibility. However, in the intervening night
       of 26.09.1990 and 27.09.1990 at about 2.00 A.M. Lal
       Bahadur, S/o. Jugnu, Ram Sajeevan, S/o. Lal Bahadur,
       Ram Pyare, S/o. Lal Bahadur, Sonawati, W/o. Lal
       Bahadur killed my daughter Kusum Devi by burning after
       pouring kerosene oil on her.
       The complaint of the complainant is against all the four
       accused. Action may kindly be taken under law after
       reporting the case. Will be highly greatful.
       Written by Nand Kishore Sahu,
       S/o. Ram Nath, village Rajepur,
       P.S. and P.O. Marvi, Distt. Unnao.
                                 Complainant Shiv Prasad Sahu
                                 S/o. Laxman Sahu R/o. Village
                                 Bakhat, Distt. Unnao
                                 27.09.1990”
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        487

                Ram Pyarey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh


5.   On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the
     offence of dowry death punishable under Section 304B of the IPC,
     against four accused persons which included the appellant herein.
     The offence being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was
     committed under the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of
     Criminal Procedure. Charges were framed against four accused
     persons including the appellant herein.
6.   It appears that although the original charge framed by the trial court
     was one for dowry death punishable under Section 304B of the IPC
     yet, the trial court acquitted all the accused persons for the offence
     punishable under Section 304-B, however convicted them for the
     offence of abetment of suicide punishable under Sections 306 and
     498A of the IPC respectively.
7.   We are informed that the father-in-law and mother-in-law passed away
     while the appeal before the High Court was pending. So far as, the
     husband is concerned he has already undergone the sentence as
     imposed by the trial court. In fact, he did not file any appeal against
     his conviction.
8.   The present appellant who is the brother-in-law of the deceased is
     here before us with this appeal.
9.   We have heard Mr. Bharat Bhushan, the learned counsel appearing
     for the appellant and Mr. K. Parmeshwar, the learned senior counsel
     appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
10. We have looked into the oral evidence on record. We have also
    looked into the nature of the allegations levelled against the appellant
    herein.
11. We are of the view that there is practically no evidence on the basis
    of which it could be said that the appellant herein as brother-in-law
    abetted the commission of suicide. We need not say anything further
    in the matter.
12. The law as regards the abetment of suicide punishable under
    Sections 306 of the IPC is now well settled. It appears that the
    Courts below laid much emphasis on Section 113B of the Evidence
    Act, 1872 (for short, “the Evidence Act”). Sections 113A & 113B of
488                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


       the Evidence Act talks about presumption. Sections 113A and 113B
       respectively read thus:-
           “113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
           married woman.─ When the question is whether the
           commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted
           by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is
           shown that she had committed suicide within a period of
           seven years from the date of her marriage and that her
           husband or such relative of her husband had subjected
           her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to
           all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide
           had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of
           her husband.
           Explanation.─ For the purposes of this section, “cruelty”
           shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the
           Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
           113B. Presumption as to dowry death.─ When the question
           is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a
           woman and it is shown that soon before her death such
           woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or
           harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
           dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had
           caused the dowry death.
           Explanation.─ For the purposes of this section, “dowry
           death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B
           of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
13. It is relevant to note that under Section 113B, the Court shall presume
    dowry death unlike Section 113A where the provision says that Court
    may presume abetment of suicide. This is the vital difference between
    the two provisions which raises presumption as regards abetment
    of suicide. When the Courts below want to apply Section 113A of
    the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be
    first some cogent evidence as regards cruelty & harassment. In the
    absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment
    in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightway
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                     489

                   Ram Pyarey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh


     invoke Section 113A and presume that the accused abetted the
     commission of suicide.
14. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.
    The judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court as
    confirmed by the High Court is hereby set aside.
15. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain