2013(3)ALT(Cri)32, 2013(2)BomCR(Cri)14, 2013(1)JCC700, JT2013(2)SC505, 2013(1)N.C.C.643, 2013(2)RCR(Criminal)514, 2013(2)SCALE322, 2013(2)UC801, 2013(3)ACR3004, 2013 (81) ALLCC 345

In the instant case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty of the nature described in clause (b) of Explanation to s.498A, IPC, as there is no allegation that the appellant had harassed her with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or that he subjected her to harassment on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. [para 8] 1.3 As regards Clause (a) of the Explanation to s. 498A, the High Court has relied on Ext. 47 i.e. a written undertaking dated 13.4.1988 given by appellant to give equal treatment to both his wives. Exts. 47 is an evidence of some misbehaviour of the appellant towards the deceased but the nature of the misbehaviour has not been stated in it. Besides, the drowning of the deceased took place three months after Ext. 47 had been execuited. For holding the appellant guilty of the offences u/s 306 and 498A, IPC, there must be evidence of wilful conduct of the appellant towards the deceased soon before her death which could have driven her to commit suicide. The post mortem examination report of deceased described her as `well nourished' and the last meal was taken by her within six hours. Moreover, the post mortem examination report does not show that the deceased was subjected to any severe beating before her death. [para 11and 13] 1.4 Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of any wilful conduct which was of such a nature as was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Rather, there appears to be some evidence in the depositions of PW-1 and PW-4 (father and sister of the deceased) that the deceased was sad due to a daughter being born to her and a son being born to the first wife of the appellant. These circumstances may have driven her to commit suicide by jumping into the well along with her daughter. Such a consequence from the mental state of the deceased cannot be a ground for holding the appellant guilty of cruelty within the meaning of clause (a) of the Explanation to s.498A, IPC. Therefore, the presumption u/s 113A is not attracted and the appellant cannot also be held guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased.