Summary
The appellant's wife attempted suicide in 1996 citing dowry harassment, returned after a settlement, and hanged herself on 21.10.1996. His conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC was affirmed in appeal, but the Kerala High Court in revision acquitted him under Section 304B while confirming the Section 498A conviction. He argued that, once acquitted of the death-related charge, the deceased's statements were inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act for the Section 498A charge. The Supreme Court held that admissibility under Section 32(1) turns on whether the cause of death came into question and whether the statements relate to the circumstances of the transaction of death, not on whether the death charge succeeds, overruled Gananath Pattnaik and three later decisions to that extent, and dismissed the appeal on the mother's evidence of dowry harassment.
Issues
- Whether statements of a deceased wife are admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove cruelty under Section 498A IPC when the accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC relating to her death.
- Whether the evidence of the deceased's mother, a related witness, could sustain the conviction under Section 498A IPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 32(1) and Illustration (a), Indian Evidence Act, 1872The phrase 'cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question' is wider than charges of murder, suicide or dowry death and applies 'whatever may be the nature of the proceeding'; Illustration (a) itself concerns a rape charge (Queen v. Bissorunjun Mookerjee; Lalji Dusadh). Admissibility is judged when the evidence is received, not by the eventual result, so failure of the charge relating to death does not render the statement inadmissible for other charges in the same transaction (Parmanand Ganga Prasad). 'Circumstances of the transaction' must have some proximate relation to the death, as explained in Pakala Narayana Swami and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. (¶¶ 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Sections 498A and 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction under Section 498A was sustained independently of the deceased's statements, on the mother's evidence of the appellant's threat to abandon the deceased unless additional dowry was given, her first suicide attempt, the settlement reached in hospital and the ill-treatment that continued thereafter; the acquittal under Section 304B was not in appeal. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27)
Held
- The test for admissibility under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is not that the evidence directly relate to a charge pertaining to the death, or that the charge relating to death be proved; it is that the cause of death comes into question in the case, regardless of the nature of the proceeding, and that the statement forms part of the circumstances of the transaction relating to the death. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Statements of a deceased wife regarding cruelty may be admitted in a trial for Section 498A IPC under Section 32(1) on two conditions: first, her cause of death must have come into question, as where the accused is also charged under Sections 302, 306 or 304B IPC, and it is immaterial whether that charge is proved; second, the prosecution must show that the evidence relates to the circumstances of the transaction of the death, how far back and how connected depending on the facts of each case without any straitjacket formula. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, Inderpal v. State of M.P., Bhairon Singh v. State of M.P. and Kantilal Martaji Pandor v. State of Gujarat, insofar as they hold that the deceased's evidence cannot be admitted under Section 32(1) to prove the Section 498A charge merely because the accused stands acquitted of the charge relating to the death, are not correct and stand overruled to that limited extent. (¶¶ 12, 13, 23)
- It was unnecessary to decide whether the deceased's statements were admissible here, since the other evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt: PW-3, the mother, deposed that within days of the marriage the appellant sent the deceased back threatening to marry another girl unless extra dowry was given, that she attempted suicide, that a settlement (Ext. P-3, whose existence PW-9, an independent witness, also proved though the High Court doubted its admissibility) was reached in hospital, and that ill-treatment continued until she hanged herself. Three courts concurrently found PW-3 reliable; evidence of a related or interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground alone, though it is scrutinised more carefully (Ilangovan), and nothing was shown to disbelieve her. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Kerala High Court's judgment of 12.09.2018 in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 1801 of 2006 confirming the appellant's conviction under Section 498A IPC and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment upheld; his bail bonds cancelled and he directed to surrender within one week to serve the remaining sentence.