WADDE JANARDHAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been placed before this Division Bench on a reference made by our learned Brother Siddappa, J., who disagreed with the view taken by Rangarajan, J., in Yagna Sree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996 (1) ALT (Crl.) 200. The scope and ambit of presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act vis-a-vis the offence under Section 306, IPC falls for our consideration.

(2.) The appellant was charged of an offence under Section 304-B of IPC by the Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District along with his parents and sister. The prosecution case was that the deceased who was married two years prior to her death committed suicide on 11-10-1992 by consuming poison, having been unable to bear the cruel treatment and harassment meted out to her by the accused in demanding Rs.5,000/- or scooter towards dowry. The appellant was convicted under Section 306, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 8 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The learned Sessions Judge found that the deceased who was brought 20 days earlier to the house of the husband from her parents' house, was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Explanation to Section 498-A for not complying with the demand of the accused for dowry and therefore an offence under Section 498-A was established. The learned Judge went further and applied the presumption under Section 113-A and came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 306, IPC. The other three accused were acquitted.

(3.) Before the learned single Judge, it was contended that at the most, the prosecution can be said to have proved the commission of offence under Section 498-A, IPC and the conviction under Section 306, IPC is wholly untenable. The question whether the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act can be applied, loomed large in the course of arguments before the learned Judge. Reliance was placed on the decision in Yagna Sree's case (supra) in which Rangarajan, J., having found the accused-husband guilty of cruelty under Section 498-A, IPC, declined to apply the presumption under Section 113-A of Evidence Act on the facts of that case. The (earned Judge expressed the view that the presumption under Section 113-A should be with reference to one of the three ingredients forming part of Section 107, IPC and if none of these ingredients is attracted on the basis of the evidence let in by the prosecution, there is no scope to apply the presumption under Section 113-A. The learned Judge having noticed the three ingredients of abetment viz., (i) instigation, (ii) conspiracy, and (iii) intentional aiding, held as follows: