- In Surendran vs State of Kerala the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that evidence of a deceased wife under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to cruelty can be admissible in a trial for a charge under section 498A of IPC.
- In the instant case, the appellant married the deceased on 9-4-1995. It was alleged that she was harassed by her in-laws for additional dowry, due to which she hanged herself on 21-10-199, at her own home. The prosecution charged the appellant, his parents and his two brothers under section 304B and 498A of IPC. pending trial, the appellant’s father passed away. The appellant and his mother were convicted of the offences charged while the two brothers were acquitted.
- The appellant then approached the HC by way of revision. The HC partly allowed the same and acquitted the appellant and his mother of the charges under section 304B of IPC while confirming their conviction under section 498A of IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and his mother of one month. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal.
- The main arguments advanced by the Counsel for the appellant was that the suicide note and the other statements made by the deceased cannot be relied upon by the Court for convicting him under section 498A as they donot fall within the scope of section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. Also, the evidence of the mother of the deceased is contradictory and cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant.
- Referring to the cases of Lalji Dusadh vs King Emperor AIR 1928 Pat. and Parmanand Ganga Prasad vs Emperor AIR 1940 Nag. the Apex Court observed that the test of admissibility of evidence under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is that the cause of death must come into question in the case, regardless of the nature of the proceedings and that the purpose for which the evidence in the proceeding is sought to be admitted should be a part of the circumstances of the transaction relating to the death.
- The Court also referred to the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra (1984) SCC wherein it was observed that where death is a logical culmination of a long drama and, as it were, a finale of the story, the statement regarding each step directly connected with the end of the drama would be admissible because the entire statement would have to be read together as an organic whole and not torn from the context. It was also observed that when the main evidence consists of statements and letters written by the deceased which are directly connected with or related to her death which reveal a story, the statement would clearly fall within the contours of section 32 Evidence Act and would be admissible.
- This is, however, subject to two conditions:
- Her cause of death must come into question;
- The prosecution shows that the evidence sought to be admitted with respect to 498A IPC must relate to the transaction which relates to her death.
- Thus, the Court overruled the judgments in Gananath Patnaik vs State of Orissa (2002) SCC, Bhairon Singh vs State of MP (2009) SCC and Kantilal Martaji vs State of Gujarat (2013) SCC to this extent.
- The Court observed that in the present case it was not necessary to undertake the exercise to figure out whether the statement of the deceased would be admissible under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, as there is ample evidence to suggest that the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
- The appeal was, thus, dismissed.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
