Case title:
Surendran versus State of Kerala
Date of Order:
May 13, 2022
Bench:
N.V. Ramana, A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli. JJ
Parties:
Surendran - Appellant
State of Kerala - Respondent.
SUBJECT
Dowry death is a term used to describe the death of a woman who is killed by her husband or his family members because of their dissatisfaction with the dowry given by the woman's family. In many cultures, it is customary for the bride's family to provide a dowry to the groom's family as a symbol of their commitment to the marriage. Dowry deaths are a form of domestic violence and are illegal in many countries, including India, where the term originated. According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India, there were 7, 026 dowry deaths in the country in 2016. These deaths are often underreported, and the actual number may be higher.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 304B
- Section 498A
Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 32(1)
OVERVIEW
- The appellant married the deceased on 09.04.1995.
- Following their marriage, it was alleged that the husband and his family members started harassing the deceased by demanding more dowry.
- On 11.02.1996 the deceased attempted suicide but recovered on time.
- Later on, the parties resorted to mediation and it was settled that the deceased would continue to live with her husband.
- Sadly, on 21.10.1996, the deceased committed suicide by hanging due to continued harassment.
- The appellant and his family members were charged under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC and the trial court convicted the accused persons.
- Aggrieved, the appellant and his mother filed the Criminal Revision Petition before the Kerala High Court.
- The High Court partly allowed the revision petition by acquitting the appellant and his mother under Section 304B of the IPC while confirming their conviction under Section 498A of the IPC.
- The appellants approached the Supreme Court of India through a special leave petition, aggrieved by the above Kerala High Court decision.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether judgment dated 12.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1801 of 2006 warrant any interference by the Supreme Court of India?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The counsel for the appellant contended that the suicide note and other statements made by the deceased are not reliable according to Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Reliance was placed on the case of Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa [(2002) 2 SCC 619] in support of the above point.
- The counsel also asserted that evidence from the deceased's mother is contradictory and cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant.
- It was submitted before the court that there wasn't any credible evidence to convict the appellant and therefore he should be acquitted.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The counsel for the respondent submitted that the lower courts have made three consistent and well-founded findings of fact that do not warrant any intervention by this Court in using its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
- The counsel firmly submits that there is ample evidence to convict the accused under Section 498A of the IPC.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and canceled the appellant's bail bonds.
- The Court ruled that the reliability of evidence given by PW3 (the mother of the deceased) cannot be questioned.
- It was observed that PW-3's evidence makes it clear that the deceased was being harassed. During her testimony, she explicitly mentioned that shortly after their wedding, the accused took his wife back to her parents' house and threatened to abandon her and marry another "prettier" girl if additional dowry wasn't provided.
- Reliance was placed on the case of Sudhakar v. State [(2018) 5 SCC 435] to hold that the testimony of a related or interested witness can be considered.
- The bench noted that the counsel for the state was right in pointing out that the case can be decided even without determining whether the deceased's statement can be admitted under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
CONCLUSION
Dowry deaths are a devastating reality and one of the horrors of any marriage. The Supreme Court of India through this judgment, delivered justice to the deceased and everyone associated with her. The bench consisted of Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice A.S. Bopanna, and Justice Hima Kohli. JJ pronounced valuable findings mainly regarding Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act when the counsels for appellants tried to invalidate the statements made by the mother of the deceased, which were monumental in proving the guilt of the accused persons. Section 32 relates to the admissibility of statements made by a person who cannot be called a witness. The section itself specifies the circumstances under which such statements become relevant. The Apex Court ruled that it is a settled principle of law that evidence presented by a witness with a personal connection or vested interest cannot be dismissed solely on those grounds. However, as a rule of prudence, the Court may scrutinize the evidence of such related or interested witnesses more carefully.
