# STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. SRI ORILAL JAISWAL AND ANR - **Citation:** [1993] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 461 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1993-09-23 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1990 - **Bench:** K. Jayachandra Reddy, G.N. Ray - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-west-bengal-v-sri-orilal-jaiswal-and-anr-12190 - **Pages:** 26 ## Headnote Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 306, read with Section 34, Section 498-A read with Section 34-Husband and mother-in-law of newly young married girl subjecting her to cruelty-Suicide by bride within a year of marC riage-Held, deceased has been subjected to humiliation and physical as well as mental torture throughout-Acts of accused were quite likely to destroy nonnal frame of mind of deceased and to drive her to frustration and mental agony and to end her life by committing suicide-Both accused convicted of offence under section 498A benefit of doubt given under Section 306. Explanation to Section 4~8-A-!'Cruelty"-Wilful conduct of husband and mother-in-law driving bride to commit suicide-Degree of sensivity examined-Held, victim jilted from nonnal frame of mind due to cruelty meted out to her-Acts of accused covered under expression "Cruelty". Criminal Trial-Suicide by a young married girl within a year of her marriage-Charge of cruelty-Standard of proof-Depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case, quality of evidence adduced, materials placed on record. Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 113-A--Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a ma"ied woman-Held : requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after introduction of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 113- A. D E F Respondents No. 1 and 2 were charged with the offences under G Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 498-A read with Section 34 I.P.C. The prosecution's case was that Respondent No. l's wife, who was on twenty years' age was treated cruelly and tortured both mentally and physically by the two Respondents, viz., her husband and mother-in-law, as a. result of which she committed suicide, within a year of her marriage. H 461 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A The Sessions Judge covicted both the respondents of the offences charge, and sentenced each of them to 5 year's rigorous imprffiionment and fine of Rs. 1,080 and 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000 on both the counts respectively. On appeal by the respondents, the High Court enumerated a number of circumstances, namely: there was no B satisfactory explanation of delay in lodging the F .I.R., there was no dying declaration or suicidal note, there was no letter during the subsistence of marriage, there was no letter addressed to the mother who used to live outside the city most of the time, there was no complaint either by the father or father-in-law of the victim, there was no evidence regarding the c injuries received by the deceased or the mat-treatment, no specific date was given when the deceased had allegedly told her mother about the demand for dowery or the mat-treatment and no specific date or time was given for making such demand; although the adult members of the family of the deceased consisting of four brothers, sisters and brothers-in-law and father were the residents of Calcutta, the deceased had never complained D anything to them, and held that these circumstances gave rise to a great doubt against the prosecution's story and that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the respondents and cruelty as enumerated in Section 498-A had not been established, that the presump· tion under Section 113A of the India Evidence Act, could not be pressed E in to service, and accordingly, Section 306 l.P.C. also could not be invoked, and that since there was no independent evidence ofinducement to commit suicide either by the mother-in-law or by the husband of the deceased, the conviction of the accused persons was unwarranted. Accordingly, it set aside the conviction and sentences and passed an order of acquittal in p favour of both the ·accused. In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant· State that the High Court took a very unreasonable view completely. overlooking the clinching evidence about the complicity of both the accused in the offences charged against them, th ## Text _Characters 0–39,892 of 66,345. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39892 for what follows._ STATE OF WEST BENGAL A v. SRI ORILAL JAISWAL AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 B ( K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 306, read with Section 34, Section 498-A read with Section 34-Husband and mother-in-law of newly young married girl subjecting her to cruelty-Suicide by bride within a year of marC riage-Held, deceased has been subjected to humiliation and physical as well as mental torture throughout-Acts of accused were quite likely to destroy nonnal frame of mind of deceased and to drive her to frustration and mental agony and to end her life by committing suicide-Both accused convicted of offence under section 498A benefit of doubt given under Section 306. Explanation to Section 4~8-A-!'Cruelty"-Wilful conduct of husband and mother-in-law driving bride to commit suicide-Degree of sensivity examined-Held, victim jilted from nonnal frame of mind due to cruelty meted out to her-Acts of accused covered under expression "Cruelty". Criminal Trial-Suicide by a young married girl within a year of her marriage-Charge of cruelty-Standard of proof-Depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case, quality of evidence adduced, materials placed on record. Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 113-A--Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a ma"ied woman-Held : requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after introduction of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 113- A. D E F Respondents No. 1 and 2 were charged with the offences under G Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 498-A read with Section 34 I.P.C. The prosecution's case was that Respondent No. l's wife, who was on twenty years' age was treated cruelly and tortured both mentally and physically by the two Respondents, viz., her husband and mother-in-law, as a. result of which she committed suicide, within a year of her marriage. H 461 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A The Sessions Judge covicted both the respondents of the offences charge, and sentenced each of them to 5 year's rigorous imprffiionment and fine of Rs. 1,080 and 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000 on both the counts respectively. On appeal by the respondents, the High Court enumerated a number of circumstances, namely: there was no B satisfactory explanation of delay in lodging the F .I.R., there was no dying declaration or suicidal note, there was no letter during the subsistence of marriage, there was no letter addressed to the mother who used to live outside the city most of the time, there was no complaint either by the father or father-in-law of the victim, there was no evidence regarding the c injuries received by the deceased or the mat-treatment, no specific date was given when the deceased had allegedly told her mother about the demand for dowery or the mat-treatment and no specific date or time was given for making such demand; although the adult members of the family of the deceased consisting of four brothers, sisters and brothers-in-law and father were the residents of Calcutta, the deceased had never complained D anything to them, and held that these circumstances gave rise to a great doubt against the prosecution's story and that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the respondents and cruelty as enumerated in Section 498-A had not been established, that the presump· tion under Section 113A of the India Evidence Act, could not be pressed E in to service, and accordingly, Section 306 l.P.C. also could not be invoked, and that since there was no independent evidence ofinducement to commit suicide either by the mother-in-law or by the husband of the deceased, the conviction of the accused persons was unwarranted. Accordingly, it set aside the conviction and sentences and passed an order of acquittal in p favour of both the ·accused. In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant· State that the High Court took a very unreasonable view completely. overlooking the clinching evidence about the complicity of both the accused in the offences charged against them, that the High Court erred in not G appreciating the factors so far as timely lodging of the F .I.R. was concerned, and it failed to consider evidence indicating that both the accused, the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, had treated her with cruelty almost from the very beginning of her married life and she was subjected to both physical and mental torture by various acts and abetted H her to commit suicide. STATE v. JAISWAL 463 On behalf of respondents it was contended that (i) in a criminal trial, A the offence charged against the accused must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt and however grave and intriguing may be the circumstances the Court should ensure that the burden of strict proof on the I prosecution is not covertly substituted by surmises and conjecture (ii) there was no evidence against the husband that he had induced or suggested that the deceased should end her life, (iii) that no tenant or neighbour/disinterested witness had deposed that either of the accused used to abuse or assault the deceased. Allowing the appeal partly, this Court HELD: U. The Judgment of acquittal passed. by the High Court cannot be justified and the same is against the weight of the evidence adduced in the case. [ 478-G] 1.2. It cannot be said that there has been unjustified inordinate delay B c in lodging the F.l.R. The High Court failed to note that the elder brother D of the deceased had in fact made a written complaint on the very same day to the police but the same was not treated as FIR by the Police and he also made a statement before the Police on the next day wherein the allegation of cruelty meted out to his sister were clearly indicated. [480-D] 1.3. There could be no dying declaration when it was nobody's case that the deceased was alive so as to make a dying declaratfon. Absence of a suicidal note was not an important factor in deciding the case. There was evidence to support the prosecution case that the deceased had been complaining about the cruel treatment meted out to her, that the deceased had been subjected to mental and physical torture and she remained unhappy in the house of in-laws, and such acts of cruelty, in ordinary course, were likely to disturb the mental frame of the deceased and cause sufficient impulses to commit suicide. [ 480-F] E F 1.4. In view of the circumstances, exchange of letters between the deceased and her relations on parents side should not have been reasonab- G ly expected. Beside her parents, other members of the family were permanent residents of the City itself and although the mother used to leave the City at times, she often used to come to the city and it is the positive case of the mother and also the elder brother of the deceased that on a number of occasions when the deceased had come to their house she had H 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A met the mother and the other members of the family. (480-G-H, 481-A] 1.5. It is the evidence of the mother of the deceased that she had spoken to respondent No. 2, namely, the mother-in-law about the mat-treatment meted out to her da11.ghter and she also implored before the motherin-Iaw that the daughter should not be subjected to any abuses or B humiliations. It is the Drosecution case that mother-in-law abused the daughter-in-law by saying that she was a woman of evil luck and had brought mis-fortune to the family. It is, therefore, quite natural that the mother of the deceased had made complaints to her mother-in-law and had requested her not to abuse and humiliate her daughter. Hence, the question C of complaint by the father was neither expected nor necessary. (481-C-D] 1.6. The High Court was not right in holding that there was no evidence about mal·treatment give to the deceased or there was absence of any evidence of injuries sustained by the deceased before her death. The mother, elder brother, sister and other relations of the deceased have D deposed about the mal-treatment and physical assault of the deceased. The doctor conducting the post-mortem has noted some injuries which were ante-mortem on the person of the deceased. (481-D-EJ 1.7. There is positive evidence of the mother and elder brother of the E deceased that when after about a month of the marriage, the deceased came to her parental house, she had narrated about cruelty and mental torture sutrered by her in the house of the accused, and she specifically complained that within a few days after her marriage the father-in-law of respondent No. 2 had died and in view of such death, she was abused and treated with cruelty by the accused No. 2. Thereafter, on other occasion F also whenever she had come to the parental house, she had talked about such mal-treatment. The deceased was alive only for about 10 months after marriage and it is nobody's case that the deceased complained about the mal-treatment given in remote past or only on specific occasions so that exact date was required to be mentioned. (481-G-H, 482-A] G 1.8. The High Court was not right in holding that the deceased did not complain to her close relations. Such a finding is contrary to the evidence in the case. The prosecution case was not properly investigated by the police for which the Sessions judge has rightly commented on the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, who has failed and neglected H to examine the members of the family and as such, in fairness, the STATE v. JAISWAL 465 evidences of the sister and other close relations of the deceased were not A taken into consideration by the Session Judge and he has mainly relied on the evidence of the mother in basing his finding. For a newly married woman, her mis-fortune in the house of in-laws was not expected to be made public and confiding to the mother was only natural. [ 482-C-E] 1.9. Ordinarily, it is not expected that physical torture or the abuses hurled on the wife by the husband and the mother- in-law should be made in such a way as to be noticed by the tenants living in the adjoining portions of the house, It is also not the case of the prosecution that the neighbours came to know about such assault, or that abuses used to be hurled loudly so that the tenants had occasions to hear them. It was, therefore, not necessarily to examine neighbour or tenants to prove the prosecution case. [ 482-H, 483-A] 2. The evidence about physical and mental torture of the deceased has come from the mother, elder brother other close relations. Such depositions by close relations, who may be interested in the prosecution of the accused, need not be discarded simply on the score of the absence of corroboration by independent witness. Whether evidence of interested witness is worthy of credence is to be judged in the special facts of the case. (483-B] 3.1 It is true that in a criminal trial, the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings. However intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the intro· duction of Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of India Evidence Act. Although the conscious of the court must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, there is no absolute standard B c D F for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made G against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the . evidence adduced in the case and the materials' placed on record. [483-D-F] Bater v. Bate1; [1950] 2 All ER 458 and Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh & Ors.; A.1.R. (1990) S.C. 209, referred to. H 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A 3.2. The court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and B c circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance dischord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance dischord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. [ 484-D-F] 3.3. In the instant case, there is no material worthy of evidence to hold that the deceased w~s hyper-sensitive and that for other reasons and not on account of cruelty she had lost normal frame of mind and being overcome by unusual psychic imbalance, decide to end her life by committing D suicide. The evidence adduced in the case has clearly established that the deceased was subjected to abuses, humiliation and mental torture from the very beginning of her married life. The deceased was abused by her motherin-Iaw/respondent No. 2 by saying that the deceased was a woman of evil luck only because an elderly member in the family had died after her E marriage. The evidence in the case reveals an act of extreme form of cruelty by telling the unfortunate mother/deceased that she was vile enough to swallow her own baby and she should commit suicide. There was also evidence in the case that the husband used to come home drunk and abuse her and also nse to assault her on occasions. The bridal presents brought by her were branded as goods of inferior quality and she was asked to take F the said articles back to her parental home. There is no manner of doubt that the evidence of mother rightly accepted by the Sessions Judge, and there being no reason to discard the same, clearly establishes that the deceased has been subjected to physical and mental torture all throughout. Respondent No.1, the husband, also treated the deceased with cruelty. Such acts, to say the least, were very unkind and a newly married woman is bound G to suffer a great mental pain and humiliation. [ 484-G-H, 485-C-E] 3.4 The acts of the accused were quite likely to destroy the normal frame of mind of the deceased and to drive her to frustration and mental agony and to end her life by committing suicide and amounted to cruelty H as envisaged by Explanation (a) to Section 498-A LP .C. In the circumstan- STATE v.JAISWAL[RAY,J.] 467 ces offence under Section 498-A, l.P.C. is clearly established against both· A the accused. [ 485-G-H] 4. Although there are materials on record to indicate that both the accused were also guilty under Section 306 l.P.C., but they are acquitted of the charge, giving them benefit of doubt. [ 486-C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 734/91. From the Judgment and Order dated the 14th May 1990 of the High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta in Cr!. Appeal No. 95/90. P.S. Pati and D.N. Mukherjee for the Appellant. R.K. Jain, S.G. Ghosh, Ashim Mehrotra and B.B. Tarwakley for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B c D G.N. RAY, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal against the judgment of acquittal dated May 14, 1990 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1990. By the aforesaid judgment, the conviction and sentences against the E accused, Sri Orilal Jaiswal and his mother, Smt. Gujarati Debi Jaiswal, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 12th Bench of the City Sessions Court, Calcutta on February 29, 1990 in Sessions Trial Nu.1 of 1990 was set aside by the High Court and the accused were acquitted of the conviction under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentence of 5 years' F rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 in default simple imprisonment for 3 months and conviction under Section 498 read with Section 34 I.P.C. an sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The prosecution case in short is that Usha Jaiswal had committed G suicide by hanging on April 19, 1986 in the house of her husband and the in-laws within a year from the date of marriage which was solemnised between Usha Jaiswal and accused No. 1., Orilal Jaiswal on May 31, 1985. It is the case of the prosecution that it was a negotiated marriage and according to the demand of the accused persons and other members of the H 468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 25.C.R. A family of in-laws sufficient dowry including colour T.V., motor cycle, gold ornaments etc. had been given a,t the time of marriage. The prosecution case is that the deceased, Usha Jaiswal, who was only 20 years old had been treated cruelly and had been tortured both mentally and physically by the accused. It has been alleged that within a few days after the B marriage, the father-in-law of the accused No. 2 had died and the accused No. 2 had treated the deceased cruelly by telling her that she was a woman of evil luck (alakshrni) and because of her evil luck, the father-in-law had died shortly after the marriage. It has also been alleged that after the marriage, the deceased, Usha Jaiswal, had conceived but there had been C an abortion after being admitted in the hospital. The accused No. 2, the mother-in-law of Usha J aiswal caused severe mental pain by telling her in the hospital itself she was a woman of evil luck and that she had swallowed her baby and she should commit suicide. It has also been alleged that the accused No.1 the husband of the deceased often used to come home drunk D and physically assault the deceased. Both the husband and his mother had also caused severe mental torture to the deceased by telling that she had brought bridal presents of sub-standard quality and such articles should be taken back and dowry gifts of good quality should be brought. It has been alleged by the prosecution that as a result of such physical and mental torture by the accused persons, the deceased became unhappy and on E several occasions when she had come to her father's house, she complained that she had been maltreated and tortured both physically and mentally . with cruelty by the husband and mother-in-law in the manner aforesaid. It has also been alleged that even on the day when the deceased had comF mitted suicide, namely, on April 19, 1986, the accused No. 1, Orilal Jaiswal, came to the .parental house of the deceased at about 10.00 a.m. and informed the mother of the deceased that his wife and mother had been quarrelling and she should go to his house for settlement but the mother of the deceased then informed the accused No. 1 that she would send her son the next day to the house of the accused but shortly thereafter, a G brother of the deceased came to the house and informed the other brother and the mother that something had happened to his elder sister, namely, the deceased and she had been taken to the hospital. The elder brother and thereafter parents and other relations of the deceased rushed to the hospital when they were informed that the deceased Usha Jaiswal had H committed suicide. STATE v.JAISWAL[RAY,J.) 469 The brother of the deceased, Om Prakash, however, made a stateA ment in the police station that his sister had been murdered but his statement was not treated as F.I.R. The next day, namely, on April 20, 1986 the mother of the deceased made a statement before the police which was recorded and treated as F.I.R. It transpires from the post mortem report that sign of death by hanging were present and according to the doctor conducting the post mortem examination the deceased had died due to hanging. The doctor B also noted a few marks of abrasions on the cheek and also on the other parts of the body which according to the doctor were ante mortem in C nature. On being questioned at the time of deposition the doctor had also stated that the mark of injury on the cheek of the deceased was likely to be caused by a slap and other injuries were also likely to be caused by fist and blows. The doctor, however, stated on being cross-examined that such injuries could also be caused if the deceased had dashed against a hard D substance and the injury on the neck could be caused by the friction of the nylon rope. After considering the evidences adduced in the case and other materials on record the learned Sessions Judge held that the case was not properly investigated by police officer in charge and there were lapses on E the part of the Investigating Officer and witnesses for prosecution had not been examined by the Police at an early date. The learned Sessions Judge commented on the performance of P.W. 14 Sri Bimal Chander Biswas, a Sub-Inspector of Calcutta Police who was the Investigation Officer in the case. The learned Session Judge observed that the Investigation Officer F had deviated from his normal duties of investigation in a serious case and most of his statement which was given out at the time of cross-examination could not be treated as a substantive statement either for the prosecution or for the defence. P:.W.2, Kamla Jaiswal, the mother of the deceased, stated that on May 31,1985, the deceased was given in marriage with the accused No.l, Orilal Jaiswal and sufficient dowry had been given at the G time of marriage as per demands of the parents of Orilal. P.W.2 further stated in her deposition that after one month of the marriage, the deceased, Usha Jaiswa~ came to their residence but she had noticed her daughter in anxiety and she had been crying all the time. She has enquired about the reason and then she was told by the deceased that since the father-in-law H 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A of her mother-in-law had died after three-four days of the marriage, the mother-in-law had abused her by telling that she was 'alakshmi' and brought misfortune. On other occasions also the deceased had stated that lier husband used to come drunk and abuse her and he had maltreated her and even assaulted her physically and had been telling her to take back all B the bridal presents as the same were of inferior quality and bring goods of better quality. P.W.2 Kamla had also stated that her youngest daughter used to visit the matrimonial home of the deceased and having came to learn from her that the deceased had not been keeping well, she was brought to their house and thereafter she was admitted to the hospital where she had delivered a dead child. The mother-in-law of the deceased C came to the hospital to see the deceased and she told the deceased that she was a woman of bad omen and vile even to the extent of swallowing her baby. The mother-in-law had also told to her daughter that she should commit suicide. In her deposition, the mother of the deceased also stated that the in-laws also demanded fresh dowries of articles such as Fridge etc. D She also stated that a few days before the occurrence, the deceased had come to her residence and was telling that she would not go to her husband's place since the husband and mother-in-law had been treating her cruelly. She also stated that on the day of committing suicide the accused, Orilal Jaiswal, came to her house at about 10.00 AM. and told her to go to their house since her daughter had been quarrelling with his E mother. When she requested Orilal Jaiswal to convince her mother Orilal replied that he was unable to say anything to her mother. P.W.2 Kamla told Orilal Jaiswal that on the next day she would sent her son to their house. Shortly thereafter, in between 12.00 P.M., she had received the information that there had been something with her daughter who had been taken to F the hospital. Immediately his son, Om Prakash, went to the hospital and thereafter she and other members of the family went to the hospital where she was told that her daughter had killed herself by hanging. She stated in her deposition that she became shocked on hearing the news of death of her daughter and was not in a position to make any statement. She was taken to home and she also became unconscious. Next day, she requested G her husband to take her to the police station to make a statement. Accordingly, on the next day she had been taken to the police station and she made statement which was written in Bengali and such statement was treated as F.1.R. by the Police. H Kumari Asha J aiswal the youngest sister of the deceased was also STATE v. JAISWAL[RAY,J.] 471 examined as P.W. 5, and she had also stated that the mother-in- law of her A deceased sister had maltreated her and used to tell her that she was the reason for the death of her father-in-law and she used to describe he as a woman of evil luck and that she should not live. She also stated that on the day when her sister had committed suicide, Orilal Jaiswal came at about 10.00 A.M. to their house and told her mother that her deceased sister and B her. mother-in-law were quarrelling and Orilal J aiswal requested her mother-in-law to go to their residence .• The mother expressed her inability to go but that she would send her eldest son, Om Prakash, to the house of the accused on the next day. At about 12 noon, on the very same day they got the information that something had happened to her sister. Therefore C they had been to the hospital where they got the information that the sister had died by hanging. She has stated that she had told the Police that the accused, Orilal Jaiswal, under the influence of liquor used to tell her deceased sister to take back the bridal presents because such articles were of bad quality and he also used to beat her. The elder brother of tlie D deceased Om Prakash was also examined as a prosecution witness (P.W.6). He had also stated that his deceased sister was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused. It appears that besides the elder brother of the deceased Om Prakash P.W.6, other relations of the deceased were also examined by the prosecution but since such persons were not examined at E an early date it was suggested by the defence that their evidence should not be taken into consideration. The learned Sessions Judge inter alia came to the finding that there was no unreasonable delay in lodging the F.l.R. by the mother of the deceased. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has accepted the F explanation of the mother of the deceased that on hearing the news of death of her daughter by committing suicide, she became unwell and was not in a position to make any statement on 19th but on the next day she made a statement to the police and such statement to the police was treated as F.l.R. The learned Sessions Judge has also noted that the G brother of the deceased on the very same day made statement before the police wherein he stated that his sister had been treated cruelly by the accused persons ever since the marriage. The learned Sessions Judge has also noted that the injuries by way of abrasion noted on the person of the deceased by the doctor conducting post mortem examination was likely to H 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A be caused by slaps and fists. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that although in the cross-examination, the doctor conducting the post mortem examination had stated in answer to the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that such injuries were also possible due to impact against a hard substance and the abrasion noted on the neck of the B deceased could be caused by a friction from a nylon rope which was a rough substance, such injuries were ante mortem in nature it was not likely that the said injuries would be caused on the person of the deceased by hitting against wall or other hard object after she had committed suicide. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that there was a positive C evidence from the side of the prosecution that shortly after the marriage, the deceased has been treated cruelly and mother-in-law had described her as a woman of evil luck and held her responsible for the death of her father-in-law. The mother-in-law had also abused the deceased when she had lost her child by saying that she was a woman of evil luck who had D even swallowed her own baby and she should commit suicide. The learned Session Judge was of the view that there were evidences to the effect that the deceased had been subjected to physical and mental torture by the accused and she was asked to take back the bridal presents by indicating that the articles were of sub-standard quality. The learned Sessions judge E has noted although the evidences about the cruelty have been given by very close relations of the deceased but simply on that score the same were no liable to be discarded. The learned Sessions Judge has also noted that under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act there was legal presumption that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide and such F G presumption has not been rebutted by any reliable evidence adduced on behalf of the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge has also noted that the deceased had committed suicide within a year from the date of her marriage and in view of the evidence that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and mental . and physical torture the provision of Section 498A I.P.C. was also attracted in the case. The learned Sessions Judge therefore came to the finding that even if the evidences of P.W.5 to were left out of consideration, there was no reason to doubt the veracity of the evidences of the mother, P.W.2 regarding the complicity of the accused persons and from such evidence it H transpired that the accused persons had systematically abused deceased ! STATE v.JAISWAL[RAY,J.] 473 Usha Jaiswal sometime by calling her as a woman of bad omen and A sometime asking for taking back bridal presents of inferior quality and she was also abused for the failure to bring further dowry from her parental house. It was due to such systematic abuses caused on the deceased that she had zilted from her normal mental frame and she was forced to end her life by hanging. In that view of the matter, the learned Session Judge B held that both the accused persons were guilty of the offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 l.P.C. and under Section 498A read with Secti