2025 Supreme(SC) 298

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Lalita – Appellant
Versus
Vishwanath & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1086 of 2017
Decided On : 30-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Abetment of suicide and cruelty – Mere harassment or cruelty is not sufficient to infer abetment – There has to be some credible evidence that accused persons aided or instigated deceased in some manner to take drastic step of putting end to her life.
(2) First Information Report is not by itself a substantial piece of evidence and statement made therein cannot be considered as evidence unless it falls within purview of Section 32 of Evidence Act.
(3) A person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-A – Abetment of suicide and cruelty – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Mere harassment or cruelty is not sufficient to infer abetment – There has to be some credible evidence that accused persons aided or instigated deceased in some manner to take drastic step of putting end to her life – There is no cogent or any reliable evidence on the basis of which it could be said that accused persons abetted commission of suicide – Possibility of husband pressurizing deceased to transfer land once again in his name, by itself, may not be sufficient to come to conclusion that deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide – It is possible that deceased might have felt bad because first wife came back to matrimonial home and being hypersensitive might have taken extreme step to commit suicide – Even with aid of presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act, it is difficult to say that accused persons abetted commission of suicide – No case is made out for interference – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 21, 22, 23, 26, 39 and 40)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – First Information Report – F.I.R. can be registered by victim, a witness or someone else with knowledge of crime – First Information Report is not by itself a substantial piece of evidence and statement made therein cannot be considered as evidence unless it falls within purview of Section 32 of Evidence Act – If informant dies, First Information Report can be used as a substantive evidence – However, death of informant must have nexus with F.I.R. filed or somehow having some link with any evidence regarding F.I.R. – In case death of informant has no nexus with complaint lodged, contents of F.I.R. would not be admissible in evidence – In such circumstances, contents cannot be proved through Investigating Officer – Investigating Officer should not be permitted to depose exact contents of F.I.R. so as to make them admissible in evidence – All that is permissible in law is that Investigating Officer can, in his deposition, identify signature of first informant and that of his own on First Information Report and he can depose about factum of F.I.R. being registered by him on a particular date on a particular police station. (Paras 30, 31, 32 and 34)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8 and 32 – Constitution of India – Article 20(3) – First Information Report – Relative importance of a First Information Report is far greater than any other statement recorded by police during course of investigation – In certain cases, First Information Report can be used under Section 32(1) of Evidence Act or under Section 8 of Evidence Act as to cause of informant’s death or as a part of informant’s conduct – For an F.I.R. lodged by a deceased person to be treated as substantial, its contents must be proved – It has to be corroborated and proved for there to be any value of same in the case – F.I.R. can be used by defence to impeach credit of person who lodged F.I.R. under Section 154(3) of Evidence Act – It may happen that informant is accused himself – In such cases, First Information Report lodged by him cannot be used as an evidence against him because it is embodied in basic structure of our Constitution that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Paras 30, 31 and 34)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is at instance of mother of deceased (de facto complainant) seeking to assail Judgment and order passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, by which High Court allowed Criminal Appeal filed by respondent - herein (original accused persons) and thereby acquitting them of offence punishable under Sections 306, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.

Findings of Court:

It is absolutely incorrect on part of Trial Court and High Court to say that in absence of first informant, police officer can prove contents of F.I.R. as per Section 67 of Evidence Act.

Result : Appeal dismissed.