The Supreme Court has clarified that under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the Courts ‘shall’ presume dowry death, unlike Section 113A where the provision says that the Courts ‘may’ presume abetment of suicide.

The Court acquitted a brother-in-law (Appellant) by setting aside his conviction under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Bench explained that when the Courts want to apply Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act), the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards cruelty and harassment.

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held, “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.

AOR Bharat Bhushan represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

An FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased victim alleging dowry harassment and demands for a buffalo and gold chain by the husband and her in-laws. The victim had allegedly died by setting herself on fire.

The Trial Court charged the deceased’s husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and the Appellant (brother-in-law) under Section 304-B IPC for dowry death. While acquitting them all under Section 304-B, the Trial Court convicted them under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC. The Allahabad High Court affirmed the Judgment and Order of conviction.

Court’s Reasoning

The Bench looked into the nature of the allegations levelled against the Appellant and explained, “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 invoke Section 113A and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide.

The Court set aside the Judgments of the Trial Court and High Court, acquitting the Appellant of all charges.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “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.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Ram Pyarey v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 71)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Bharat Bhushan; Advocate Keshav Bansal

Respondent: Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar; AOR Shaurya Sahay; Advocates Aditya Kumar and Ruchil Raj

Click here to read/download the Order