Supreme Court: Hearing the appeal by the husband and the in-laws of the victim of dowry death against the order of the High Court of Karnataka which had reversed the order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the bench of Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ upheld the order of the High Court and said that once the prosecution succeeds in establishing the component of cruelty leading to conviction under Section 498A, only in a rare case, the Court can refuse to invoke the presumption of abetment, if other requirements of Section 113A of the Evidence Act stand satisfied.
In the incident that occurred 2 decades ago, a 25-year-old women who had a 10-month old son and was mothering a life of twenty week in her womb committed suicide in the wake of dowry demands. However, the appellant had alleged that the suicide was an outcome of the victim being stopped from going to her mother’s place. The High Court, after going through the relevant oral and documentary evidence in the form of letters, conclude that the trial Judge failed to look for the relevant documents already available on the record.
The Court, agreeing with the High Court’s reasoning, held that the initial explanation that the deceased committed suicide because she was not permitted to go to her mother’s place does not inspire confidence and has rightly been rejected by the High Court as only for such a trivial matter, a hale and hearty young woman having a ten months old son and a pregnancy of twenty weeks is not at all expected to take her life. Also, no explanation was given by the accused for the injuries on the person of the victim. The Court, hence, upheld the order of the High Court and said that the order of the Trial Court was highly erroneous. [Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 589, Decided on 03.06.2016]
Thanks for sharing all these ideas. Really helpful to motivate any team!
Heading syas “Presumption of abetment of suicide in dowry death cases can be revoked only in rare cases if cruelty has been established.”
Is not the heading of the case summary is misleading/contrary? Because the content of article says that
“…upheld the order of the High Court and said that once the prosecution succeeds in establishing the component of cruelty leading to conviction under Section 498A, only in a rare case, the Court can refuse to invoke the presumption of abetment, ”
It would be rather “Presumption of abetment of suicide in dowry death cases can be refused to revoked only in rare cases if cruelty has been established” Or “The Court cannot refuse to revoke presumption of abetment if the cruelty has been established.”
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
Dear Ramesh,
The heading is correct as it explains that the presumption of abetment of suicide, which is a general case when cruelty has already been established, can only be revoked in a rare case and not as a general rule. You are confused between the terms “revoke” and “refuse to invoke”. The suggestion made by you that the heading should be “The Court cannot refuse to revoke presumption of abetment if the cruelty has been established” is not appropriate as it means that the Court is bound to revoke the presumption if cruelty has been established and such heading will be completely contrast to the law.