Case title:
Lalita v Vishwanath & others
Date of Order:
30 January 2025
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan
Parties:
Petitioner: Lalita
Respondent: Vishwanath & others
SUBJECT
- The Supreme Court in this case stated that for a FIR filed by a deceased person to have any evidentiary weight, its contents must be confirmed and proven. The Court elaborated, saying that if an informant's death has nothing to do with a complaint filed, the contents of the FIR will not be admitted in evidence. Thus, in such circumstances, the contents cannot be proven by the investigating officer. In other words, unless a FIR is viewed as a dying declaration, the officer's deposition of the FIR contents does not make it admissible.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Abetment of Suicide
It deals with abetment of suicide, stating that if any person abets the commission of suicide, they shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 10 years and may also be liable to a fine. - Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Presumption of Abetment in Case of Suicide by a Married Woman
- It creates a legal presumption of abetment of suicide if a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives prior to her death. This presumption places the burden of proof on the accused, but it is rebuttable, which means that the accused can produce evidence to refute the accusation of abetment.
OVERVIEW
- The appellant claims that the deceased, Dev Kanya, was married to Respondent No.1, Vishwanath, 1½ years prior to the incident in question. Her daughter committed suicide after experiencing harassment by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and his first wife.
- The father filed a First Information Report, resulting in an investigation, while witnesses provided statements, and the deceased's body was drawn for investigation. A post-mortem indicated that the appellant's daughter drowned and committed suicide. Clothing and accessories were gathered for chemical examination.
- The investigation led to a charge sheet and case, committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused pleaded not guilty and subsequently opted for a trial.
- The Trial Court recorded oral and documentary evidence, found all four accused guilty and sentenced them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a ₹1,000 fine, based on both oral and documentary evidence.
- The accused appealed to the High Court, which acquitted all four accused of the charges after re-evaluating the evidence, and the State did not challenge the acquittal order.
- The appellant now challenges the High Court's acquittal order, as it was the father who had initially lodged the First Information Report, but passed away before the trial began.
ISSUES RAISED
- Can a FIR filed by a deceased person be considered significant evidence?
- Does simple harassment constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC?
- What is the evidential value of a FIR when the informant (the deceased's father) is not accessible for cross-examination?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellant's counsel relied on Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which presumes abetment of suicide in certain circumstances of maltreatment by a husband or family.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- F.I.Rs can be registered by a victim, a witness, or any person with knowledge of the crime, and the police may record different types of statements. However, an F.I.R. is not, by itself, a substantive piece of evidence, and its contents cannot be treated as evidence unless they fall within the scope of Section 32 of the Evidence Act.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court found no compelling evidence to show abetment of suicide and noted that mere harassment and cruelty are inadequate to infer abetment. It further stated that even with the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), it would be difficult to find that abetment of suicide occurred in the present case.
- The Court then considered the legislation governing the admissibility of FIR materials. In this case, the Trial Court authorized the Investigating Officer to prove the contents of the FIR and include it as evidence under Section 67 of the IEA. However, the Court decided that both the Trial Court and the High Court were incorrect in allowing this, noting that in the absence of the first informant, a police officer cannot prove the contents of the FIR under Section 67 of the IEA.
- It went on to state that if the informant died, the FIR would be utilized as substantive evidence. However, the informant's death must be related to the FIR.
- In light of this, the Court ruled that the Trial and High Courts were "absolutely incorrect" in permitting the police officer to prove the FIR's contents. To support its argument, the Court cited several precedents, notably Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab [(1997) 11 SCC 215: AIR 1997 SC 3231].
- After making these aforementioned findings, the Court dismissed the appeal.
CONCLUSION
- To conclude, the Court found no substantial evidence to support suicide abetment, emphasizing that mere harassment and cruelty are insufficient to infer abetment. It further noted that a FIR can only be used as substantive evidence if the informant's death is directly related to the complaint. The Court emphasized the legal grounds regulating FIR admissibility, concluding that both the Trial Court and the High Court erred in permitting a police officer to establish the contents of the FIR under Section 67 of the IEA. The Courts declared unequivocally that the lower courts' approach was "absolutely incorrect".
