Surendran v. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 1080 of 2019

Brief Facts

• In this case the accused persons were charged for offence under Section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC as the deceased had committed suicide after being harassed for the demand of dowry. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons for offence under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC. The Appellate Court acquitted the brother of the accused husband and continued the conviction of the mother-in-law and husband. The High Court acquitted both the accused persons for the offence under Section 304-B and the conviction under section 498-A IPC was continued. The Appellants approached the Apex Court and contended, inter alia, that the suicide note and other statements made by the deceased could not have been relied for the purpose of offence under Section 498-A of the IPC as do not fall within the scope of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the same would be admissible when the cause of that person’s death comes into question.

Issues

• Whether evidence of deceased with respect to cruelty would be admissible u/s 32(1) of the Evidence Act (dying declaration) to prove charge u/s-498A of IPC?
• Whether the court can rely on the evidence tended by the related or interested witness.

Held

• 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.
• To the above extent therefore, the judgments of this Court in Gananath Pattnaik, (2002) 2 SCC 619, Inderpal, (2001) 10 SCC 736, Bhairon Singh, (2009) 13 SCC 80 and Kantilal Martaji Pandor, (2013) 8 SCC 781, wherein it has been held that the evidence of the deceased cannot be admitted under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act to prove the charge under Section 498 A of the IPC only because the accused stands acquitted of the charge relating to the death of the deceased, may not be correct. These judgments stand overruled to that limited extent.
• The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW­3 is unreliable because she is the mother of the deceased, cannot be countenanced. It is a settled principle of law that the evidence tendered by the related or interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground alone. However, as a rule of prudence, the Court may scrutinize the evidence of such related or interested witness more carefully.

Relevant Para No.

• 20, 21, 22, 23 & 26