Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment dated 12.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition, whereby the High Court partly allowed the Revision Petition filed by the appellant husband. By way of the impugned judgment, the High Court has set aside the concurrent findings of conviction of the courts below and acquitted the appellant under Section 304B of the IPC while confirming his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC.
Brief Facts:
The appellant married the deceased. It is alleged that the appellant, along with his family members, started harassing the deceased soon after the marriage and was demanding additional dowry. Allegedly, the deceased attempted suicide due to the mental harassment by the accused persons. Subsequent to this incident, mediation between the parties took place and a settlement was reached between the parties. Despite the above agreement, it is alleged that the harassment continued and the deceased committed suicide by hanging at her own home. The prosecution charged the appellant, his parents and his two brothers under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The Appellate Court acquitted the appellant’s brothers of both the offences. However, the conviction and sentence against the appellant and his mother was confirmed. Aggrieved, the appellant and his mother filed the Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court of Kerala. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the revision petition and acquitted the appellant and his mother under Section 304B of the IPC while confirming their conviction under Section 498A of the IPC.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suicide notes and other statements made by the deceased cannot be relied upon by the Court for convicting him under Section 498A of the IPC as they do not fall within the scope of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was submitted that the evidence of mother of the deceased is contradictory and cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant attempts to persuade the Court that there is no credible evidence to convict the appellant under Section 498A of the IPC, and therefore, he should be acquitted of the same.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there are three concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below which do not merit any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to make out a clear case for convicting the appellant under Section 498A of the IPC.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC looked into Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, and observed that one of the main conditions laid out in the subsection is that the issue must arise “in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question”. SC stated that the present case does not fall within the scope of the aforementioned subsection as it is no longer a case in which the cause of the deceased’s death comes into question. SC stated that it may bear mentioning that the phrase “cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question” is broader than merely referring only to cases where there is a charge of murder, suicide, or dowry death.
Referring to old judgments in Parmanand Ganga Prasad v. Emperor, Lalji Dusadh v. King Emperor, Queen v. Bissorunjun Mookerjee, SC stated that from the above pronouncements, and the wordings of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, it appears that the test for admissibility under the said section is not that the evidence to be admitted should directly relate to a charge pertaining to the death of the individual, or that the charge relating to death could not be proved. Rather, the test appears to be that the cause of death must come into question in that case, regardless of the nature of the proceeding, and that the purpose for which such evidence is being sought to be admitted should be a part of the ‘circumstances of the transaction’ relating to the death.
SC observed that “in some circumstances, the evidence of a deceased wife with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge under Section 498A of the IPC under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. There are, however, certain necessary preconditions that must be met before the evidence is admitted.
- The first condition is that her cause of death must come into question in the matter. This would include, for instance, matters where along with the charge under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution has also charged the accused under Sections 302, 306 or 304B of the IPC. It must be noted however that as long as the cause of her death has come into question, whether the charge relating to death is proved or not is immaterial with respect to admissibility.
- The second condition is that the prosecution will have to show that the evidence that is sought to be admitted with respect to Section 498A of the IPC must also relate to the circumstances of the transaction of the death. How far back the evidence can be, and how connected the evidence is to the cause of death of the deceased would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. No specific straitjacket formula or rule can be given with respect to this.”
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “it is not necessary for this Court to undertake the exercise to determine whether the statement of the deceased can be admitted under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. This appeal can be decided even without considering this aspect, as the other evidence on record clearly proves the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.”
Case Title: Surendran v. State of Kerala
Bench: Cji. N.V. Ramana and J. A.S. Bopanna and J. Hima Kohli
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1080 of 2019
Decided on: 13th May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
