NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS Narendra Singh, Shyarnsingh and Smt. Narwadabai has been convicted and sentenced by order dated 30.1.1993 by Shri K.C. Garg, the then Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, under Section 306 IPC to a term of 7 years' RI and fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of fine, further term of three months' S.I. was awarded.

(2.) SHORTLY narrated facts are that Smt. Saroj deceased was wedded to appellant No.2 Shyarn Singh as early as in 1984. Appellants Narendra Singh and Smt. Narwadabai are uncle and aunt of appellant No.2 Shyarn Singh. The prosecution claimed that after the marriage, deceased Saroj was being subjected to cruelty as a result of which she committed suicide on 27.10.1988. A report (Ex.P/5) was lodged by PW 9 Dipti Singh, father of the deceased. On the basis of the report, usual investigation took place and a charge -sheet was submitted against the accused -appellants. The learned trial Court charged them under Sections 304A and 306 IPC. Accused persons denied the charge and claimed that there was a dispute between Dipti Singh on one hand and Narendra Singh on the other with respect to some money transaction. Appellant Shy am Singh was living separately than the others two appellants. Dipti Singh got the appellants implicated on account of enmity.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants argued vehemently that in order to make out a case under Section 304, IPC there are certain requirements of law and unless they are fulfilled the prosecution cannot succeed. In the present case, the fact that the deceased committed suicide too has not been satisfactorily proved and even if it is taken that she committed suicide, there is no material to show that the accused abetted the commission of suicide. The learned trial Court relied heavily upon the presumption attached to Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. But in order to attract this provision, it must be proved that there was a 'cruelty', within the meaning of the definition given under Section 498A of the IPC. As cruelty has not been proved, no presumption could be drawn. The learned counsel for the State of the other hand argued that admittedly the deceased was the wife of Shyam Singh and she died within 7 years of the marriage. The presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is, therefore, attracted and the learned trial Court rightly convicted the accused -appellants.