1. Appeal against conviction under Section 498A IPC after acquittal under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1971
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : R.P.Sethi
Inderpal
Versus
State Of M.P.
Case No. : 707 of 1995
Date of Decision : 12/6/00
Statements of a deceased regarding matrimonial cruelty are inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act unless they relate to the specific circumstances leading to death. If death is accidental, general complaints of cruelty cannot sustain a conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32(1) - Admissibility of statements of a deceased person - Statements must be as to the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death - General allegations of cruelty and beating in letters or reported to relatives are not admissible when death is found to be accidental and not the result of such harassment - Such evidence cannot support a conviction under Section 498A IPC. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 306 IPC for abetting the suicide of his wife. On appeal, the High Court held that the death was accidental and not suicidal, thereby setting aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC. However, the High Court subsequently convicted the appellant under Section 498A IPC, relying on testimonies from the deceased's relatives and letters written by the deceased alleging cruelty and beating by the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the death was determined to be accidental, the statements made by the deceased to her relatives and in her letters did not correlate to the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in her death. Consequently, these statements were inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of any other legally admissible evidence, the conviction under Section 498A IPC could not be sustained.
Issues: The main issue was whether the statements and letters of the deceased regarding matrimonial cruelty were admissible as evidence under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act to sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC, particularly when the cause of death was found to be accidental.
Ratio Decidendi: For a statement of a dead person to be admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, the statement must relate to the cause of death or any of the circumstances of the transactions which resulted in death. General complaints regarding matrimonial plight or beating are not admissible under this section if they cannot be connected to the specific transaction resulting in death, especially where the death is accidental. (Paras 6, 7)
Result: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. No evidence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC; High Court could not convict for that offence without a charge. (Para 3 )
3. Statements of deceased not admissible under Section 32(1) Evidence Act as death was accidental, not suicide. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Section 32(1) Evidence Act applies only when cause of death is in question; not for cruelty charges divorced from death. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted. (Para 9 )
6. Can statements of a deceased person be admitted under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act for an offence under Section 498A IPC?
No, because Section 32(1) requires the statement to relate to the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death. (Para 7 )
7. When can a conviction under Section 498A IPC be sustained without a charge being framed?
This issue was not decided as the appeal was allowed on the ground of insufficient admissible evidence. (Para 8 )
K.T.THOMAS, J.
(1) APPELLANT was charged and tried for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 (in default of which he was to undergo imprisonment for 3 months). The High court while dealing with his appeal found that the offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code was not made out as it could not be held that death of the deceased was due to commission of suicide. Nonetheless, the High Court proceeded to consider whether any other offence has been made out and ultimately found that appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted thereunder and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The said judgment of the High Court is now under challenge before us by special leave.
(2) FACTS of the case are as under : Appellant was the husband of Damyanti. Their marriage was solemnised on 2/06/1990. The matrimonial life was short lived as she died of bums on 16/11/1990. Appellant informed the police on 14/11/1990 that his wife suffered burn injuries. Subsequently, father of the deceased and other kith and kin of Damyanti complained to the investigating officers that her death could have been under circumstances which could create suspicion against the appellant. Police investigated in that direction and finally police charge-sheeted the appellant for the offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code.
(3) LEARNED counsel adopted a twin contention. One is that there was no evidence, on which a conclusion can be made that appellant subjected Damyanti to cruelty as envisaged under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. Second is when no charge under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant it was not open to the High Court, after holding that the offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code was not made out, to change into a different offence like 498A, Indian Penal Code.
(4) WE will consider at first the contention as to whether there is any evidence against the appellant which can be used against him for entering upon a finding that he subjected Damyanti to cruelty as contemplated in Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. PW1 - father of the deceased and PW8 - mother of the deceased have stated that Damyanti had complained to them of her plight in the house of her husband and particularly about the conduct of appellant. PW-4 - sister of the deceased and PW5 - a relative of the deceased have also spoken more or less in the same line. Exhibit P-7 and Exhibit P-8 are letters said to have been written by Damyanti. In those two letters reference has been made to her life in the house of her in-laws and in one of the letters she said that her husband had subjected her to beating.
(5) APART from the statement attributed to the deceased none of the witnesses had spoken to anything which they had seen directly. The question is whether the statements attributed to the deceased could be used as evidence in this case including the contents of Exhibits P-7 and P-8 (letters).
(6) BEFORE deciding that question we have to point out that the High Court came to a conclusion that the allegation that she committed suicide was not substantiated. A dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate in which deceased had stated that she got bums accidentally from a stove. If that be so, death could not be the result of either any harassment or any cruelty which she was subjected to. In this context we may point out that the State has not challenged the finding of the High Court that death of Damyanti was not due to commission of suicide.
(7) UNLESS the statement of a dead person would fall within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act there is no other provision under which the same can be admitted in evidence. In order to make the statement of a dead person admissible in law (wr
