Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 161 views

    Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana (26.02.2004 - SC)

    Uploaded by

    tarun chhapola
    1. The Supreme Court heard an appeal from a conviction for abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC. 2. The Court found that the High Court had failed to properly apply its mind to the facts of the case and merely repeated the lower court's judgment without independent analysis. 3. The Court then examined the evidence itself and discussed the legal principles around Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows courts to presume abetment of suicide in some circumstances. The Court emphasized that this is a rebuttable presumption that requires examining all circumstances of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana (26.02.2004 - SC)

    Uploaded by

    tarun chhapola
    161 views4 pages
    1. The Supreme Court heard an appeal from a conviction for abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC. 2. The Court found that the High Court had failed to properly apply its mind to the facts of the case and merely repeated the lower court's judgment without independent analysis. 3. The Court then examined the evidence itself and discussed the legal principles around Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows courts to presume abetment of suicide in some circumstances. The Court emphasized that this is a rebuttable presumption that requires examining all circumstances of the case.

    Original Description:

    case law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The Supreme Court heard an appeal from a conviction for abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC. 2. The Court found that the High Court had failed to properly apply its mind to the facts of the case and merely repeated the lower court's judgment without independent analysis. 3. The Court then examined the evidence itself and discussed the legal principles around Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows courts to presume abetment of suicide in some circumstances. The Court emphasized that this is a rebuttable presumption that requires examining all circumstances of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    161 views4 pages

    Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana (26.02.2004 - SC)

    Uploaded by

    tarun chhapola
    1. The Supreme Court heard an appeal from a conviction for abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC. 2. The Court found that the High Court had failed to properly apply its mind to the facts of the case and merely repeated the lower court's judgment without independent analysis. 3. The Court then examined the evidence itself and discussed the legal principles around Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows courts to presume abetment of suicide in some circumstances. The Court emphasized that this is a rebuttable presumption that requires examining all circumstances of the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    MANU/SC/0174/2004

    Equivalent Citation: 2004(3)ACR2286(SC), 2004(1)ALD(Cri)676, 2004CriLJ1759, I(2004)DMC 502SC, [2004(2)JCR164(SC)], JT2004(3)SC 45,
    2004(2)RCR(Criminal)58, 2004(2)SCALE727, (2004)12SCC 257, [2004]2SCR676, 2004(1)UC 624, 2004(1)U.D.274

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


    Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 1997
    Decided On: 26.02.2004
    Appellants:Hans Raj
    Vs.
    Respondent:State of Haryana
    Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
    N. Santosh Hegde and B.P. Singh, JJ.
    Counsels:
    For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Dhruv Mehta and S.K. Mehta, Advs
    For Respondents/Defendant: Avneet Toor, D.P. Singh and Vinay Kumar Garg,
    Advs.
    JUDGMENT
    B.P. Singh, J.
    1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant Hans Raj has impugned the
    judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature of Punjab and Haryana at
    Chandigarh dated January 21, 1997 in Criminal Appeal No. 633 - SB of 1986
    affirming the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
    Kurukshetra dated September 24, 1986 convicting and sentencing the appellant
    to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section
    306 I.P.C. We have carefully perused the judgments of the learned Additional
    Sessions Judge and the High Court and we are constrained to observe that the
    High Court while disposing of the appeal did not even apply its mind to the
    facts of the case. A disturbing feature noticed by us is that the High Court
    merely repeated paragraphs after paragraphs from the judgment of the learned
    Additional Sessions Judge as if those conclusions were its own, reached on an
    appreciation of the evidence on record. Many of the paragraphs are word
    from word borrowed from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge
    without acknowledging that fact. We are, therefore, left with the impression
    that the High Court failed to apply its mind to the facts of the case as it was
    required to do, and was content with repeating what was stated in the
    judgment of the Trial Court. In these circumstances we found it necessary to
    carefully scrutinize the evidence on record since the High Court even though
    the first court of appeal tailed to do so.
    2. . The case of the prosecution is that the wife of the appellant, namely,
    Jeeto Rani committed suicide on 24.8.1986 on account of the cruelty and
    harassment meted out to her by the appellant herein.
    3. The case of the prosecution is that in the year 1982 the appellant married
    Jeeto Rani, daughter of Munshi Ram, PW-2. It is also not in dispute that Naro,
    sister of the appellant was married to Fateh Chand, PW-3 the brother of the
    deceased. The appellant lived in village Kheri Sahidan with the deceased
    while Naro and Fateh Chand resided in the house of Munshi Ram, PW-2 at

    www.manupatra.com
    village Laha Majri. The appellant was blessed with a daughter only seven months
    before the death of Jeeto. On August 24, 1986 Munshi Ram, PW-2 father of
    Jeeto (deceased) lodged the FIR which was

    www.manupatra.com
    a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband
    (in this case) had subjected her to cruelty. Even if these facts are established
    the Court is not bound to presume that the suicide had been abetted by her
    husband. Section 113A gives a discretion to the Court to raise such a
    presumption, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, which
    means that where the allegation is of cruelty it must consider the nature of
    cruelty to which the woman was subjected, having regard to the meaning of
    word cruelty in Section 498A I.P.C. 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, does not automatically give rise to the presumption
    that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. The Court is required to look
    into all the other circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which has
    to be considered by the Court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such 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.
    The law has been succinctly stated in Ramesh Kumar v. State of
    Chhattisgarh MANU/SC/0654/2001 : 2001CriLJ4724 wherein this Court
    observed :
    "This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second)
    Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-2-1983 to meet a social
    demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women
    were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or
    in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the
    four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to
    anyone outside the occupants of the house. However, still it cannot
    be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the
    accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be
    raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113A
    shows that to attract applicability of Section 113A, it must be shown that
    (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been
    committed within a period of seven years from the date of her
    marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had
    subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid
    circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been
    abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament
    has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not
    mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression
    "may presume" suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of
    the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the
    presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the
    court shall have to have regard to "all the other circumstances of the
    case". A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may
    strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the
    court to abstain from drawing the
    presumption. The expression - "the other
    circumstances of the case" used in Section 113A suggests the need to
    reach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide
    for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least the
    presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption
    having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and
    circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the
    presumption. The phrase "may presume" used in Section 113A is defined
    in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says
    - "Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a
    fact it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is
    www.manupatra.com
    disproved, or may call for proof of it".
    15 . The same principle has been reiterated in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh
    Sengar v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0392/2002 : 2002CriLJ2796 .

    www.manupatra.com

    You might also like