Trace Your Case

HANS RAJ V. STATE OF HARYANA

Hans Raj v. State of Haryana (2004) 12 SCC 257

ISSUE:

  • Whether the husband failure to disclose the conversation preceding his wife’s suicide, combined with allegations of cruelty against him, is sufficient to presume that he abetted the suicide under Section 113 A of Indian Evidence Act, of 1872?

RULE:

  • Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act permits the court to presume that a woman’s suicide within seven years of marriage was abetted by her husband or his relatives if it is proven that she was subjected to cruelty by them. This presumption, however, is discretionary and not mandatory.
  • The court must evaluate whether the proven cruelty was of a nature likely to drive the woman to suicide, considering the totality of the circumstances.
  • Mere proof of cruelty and suicide within seven years is insufficient to establish abetment without a causal link between the two.

FACTS:

  • In 1982, Hans Raj married Jeeto Rani, daughter of Munshi Ram. They resided in village Kheri Sahidan, while Jeeto’s brother Fateh Chand was married to Hans Raj’s sister Naro.
  • Hans Raj was addicted to ‘Bhang’ and neglected his domestic duties, leading to frequent quarrels with Jeeto, who opposed his addiction. These disputes sometimes escalated to physical abuse.
  • Shortly before the incident, Hans Raj and Jeeto visited Munshi Ram’s house. Hans Raj expressed his unwillingness to continue living with Jeeto and threatened revenge against Jeeto’s brother, alleging mistreatment of his sister Naro. Munshi Ram persuaded Jeeto to return with Hans Raj, despite her fears.
  • On August 24, 1986, Jeeto consumed poison at Hans Raj’s residence and passed away. Medical evidence confirmed poisoning as the cause of death. Efforts by Dr. Ram Gopal Sharma and Dr. Kaushal to save her life were unsuccessful.
  • Munshi Ram lodged an FIR on the same day, alleging that Jeeto had faced harassment and beatings from Hans Raj due to her objections to his addiction. He also accused Hans Raj of threatening revenge over Naro’s alleged mistreatment.
  • During the trial, the prosecution alleged that Hans Raj belittled Jeeto for her appearance, expressed intentions to remarry, and subjected her to cruelty. However, many of these allegations were not mentioned during the initial investigation and appeared as new claims during the trial.
  • The trial court convicted Hans Raj under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, relying on circumstantial evidence and invoking the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act.
  • Hans Raj appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which affirmed the conviction under Section 306 IPC, reiterating the findings of the trial court without conducting an independent analysis of the evidence.
  • Hans Raj then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, challenging the High Court’s judgment and alleging errors in its reasoning and assessment of evidence.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court found procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. It noted that several allegations were introduced for the first time during the trial and lacked corroboration.
  • The court held that the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is discretionary and must be based on evidence showing cruelty severe enough to drive the victim to suicide. In this case, such evidence was insufficient to support a conviction under Section 306 IPC.
  • The court acquitted Hans Raj of the charge under Section 306 IPC, setting aside his conviction for abetment of suicide.
  • However, the court found credible evidence of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, including Hans Raj’s addiction to ‘Bhang’ and the frequent quarrels and occasional assaults it caused.
  • Hans Raj was convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. His bail was revoked, and he was ordered to surrender to serve the sentence.