Court Allows Appeal, Sets Aside Brother‑in‑Law’s Conviction in Alleged Abetment of Wife’s Suicide; Stressed Need for Cogent Evidence Before Presuming Abetment

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the appeal arising from the Allahabad High Court’s confirmation of convictions under Sections 306 and 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, challenging the conviction of Ram Pyarey (the appellant), the deceased’s brother‑in‑law, for allegedly abetting her suicide.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant and discharged his bail bonds, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the brother‑in‑law abetted the commission of suicide. The Court noted 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." The Court emphasised the distinction between presumptions under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act and cautioned that Section 113A could not be invoked in the absence of "cogent evidence as regards cruelty & harassment." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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."

Background

The deceased, Kusum (referred to as Kusum Devi in the record), allegedly set herself on fire on 27.09.1990 and succumbed to burn injuries. Her father lodged an FIR the same day naming four accused: the father‑in‑law Lal Bahadur, husband Ram Sajeevan, brother‑in‑law Ram Pyare (appellant), and mother‑in‑law Sonawati. The FIR stated inter alia that "they were demanding the buffalo and gold chain in dowry after marriage" and that the in‑laws had threatened the deceased. Investigation led to a chargesheet initially under Section 304B (dowry death) of the IPC against the four accused. The Sessions trial court acquitted the accused of Section 304B but convicted them for abetment of suicide (Section 306) and cruelty (Section 498A), and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The husband served his sentence and did not appeal; the parents‑in‑law died while the High Court appeal was pending. The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and co‑accused on 6 August 2013, affirming conviction. Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant argued absence of evidence specifically linking the brother‑in‑law to any act of aiding, instigating or abetting the suicide.

The Supreme Court examined oral evidence and the nature of allegations and found that the prosecution had not produced cogent evidence of harassment or abetment by the brother‑in‑law. The Court clarified statutory presumptions: Section 113B creates a mandatory presumption in dowry death cases, whereas Section 113A permits a court to presume abetment of suicide by husband or his relatives only when the statutory conditions and cogent evidence of cruelty within seven years of marriage were established. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that conviction could not stand for the appellant and allowed the appeal. The appellant’s bail bonds were discharged and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015 (2025 INSC 71) Case Title: Ram Pyarey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Parmeshwar, learned senior counsel