The Apex Court, while acquitting an accused of cruelty and abetment of suicide, observed that to apply Section 113B (Presumption as to dowry death) of the Indian Evidence Act, clear evidence for incessant harassment is essential. The Court stressed that in the absence of such evidence, it cannot straightaway invoke this provision.

For context, the concerned portion of Section 113 B reads as:

“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.”

Essentially, the present appellant was the brother-in-law of the deceased. It was the prosecution's case that there was harassment at the end of the husband, in-laws and the appellant. Resultantly, the deceased doused herself with kerosene and set herself on fire.

Consequently, the Trial Court convicted him under Sections 306 (Abetment of suicide) and 498-A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code and under the Dowry Prohibition Act. This order was affirmed by the High Court. Thus, the present appeal.

The Bench pointed out that there is “practically no evidence” against the appellant for abetting the suicide. The Court also drew a distinction between Section 113 A (presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman) and Section 113 B of the Evidence Act.

“It is relevant to note that under Section 113B, the Court may presume unlike Section 113A where the statute says that Court shall presume. This is a vital difference between the two provisions which raises presumption as regards abetment of suicide. When the Courts below want to apply Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards incessant harassment. In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightaway invoke Section 113B and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide.”

Based on these observations, the Court had set aside the impugned orders and allowed the present appeal.