Last Updated on September 6, 2024 by Shianjany Pradhan
Background
The wife of the Appellant died under mysterious circumstances. Her brother had lodged the complaint for harassment over dowry demands.
It was argued by the convict that there was no conclusive evidence that the husband had subjected the deceased to cruelty.
Analysis
It was held by the Jammu and Kashmir HC that merely the fact that a woman commits suicide within 7 years of marriage does not immediately invoke the presumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act.
It is the presumption of abetment of suicide by the husband and the relative of the married man.
It was emphasised that such a presumption will arise only when an act of cruelty by the husband is shown.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar emphasised the term ‘may presume’.
When the presumption is raised under section 113-A, the prosecution must show that there was cruelty and continuous harassment.
The court also took into consideration the testimonies of the independent witnesses.
The court took reference from the case of Mangat Ram v State of Haryana and Hans Raj v State of Haryana.
It was held by the court that the presumption of abetment cannot be applied automatically.
Case Title:- Showkat Ahmad V State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 252
