Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Stephen S/o. Jacob - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.A NO. 1057 OF 2007
Decided On : 10-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.P.P.BIJU
For the Respondent: SRI.RENJITH GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court affirmed that a dying declaration can serve as a basis for conviction when corroborated by credible evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt for offences under IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 452, 354, and 306 - Conviction of accused for offences of house trespass, outraging modesty, and abetting suicide - Court upheld the conviction based on dying declaration and corroborative evidence from victim's family - The court emphasized the importance of the victim's statement and the continuous harassment faced by her. (Paras 1, 3, 22)
(B) Dying Declaration - The court treated the First Information Statement as a dying declaration, affirming its relevance under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, considering the circumstances leading to the victim's death. (Paras 15, 18)
(C) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove the commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt, demonstrating the accused's intent and actions leading to the victim's suicide. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for trespassing, assaulting, and causing the victim's suicide due to continuous harassment and abuse, leading to her attempting suicide after the incident.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's findings were upheld, confirming the accused's guilt based on the evidence presented, including the victim's dying declaration and testimonies from her family.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused under Sections 452, 354, and 306 of IPC, and whether the evidence warranted interference with the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence, particularly the dying declaration and testimonies, established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, justifying the conviction and sentence.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:
- Case Details: The appeal was filed by Stephen S/o. Jacob against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, in S.C.No.448/2003, arising from crime No.159/2002 of Vandiperiyar Police Station. (!) (!)
- Incident Overview: The victim, xxxx, attempted suicide by setting herself on fire with kerosene in her layam (dwelling) on 25.09.2002 and died on 27.10.2002 due to burn injuries. (!) (!)
- Prosecution Allegations: The accused trespassed into the victim's house, demanded her gold ornaments, tore her nighty, restrained her, and caused her to drop her studies due to continuous harassment, leading to her suicide. (!) (!)
- Charges: The accused was convicted under Sections 452 (House Trespass), 354 (Outraging Modesty), and 306 (Abetting Suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (!) (!) (!)
- Dying Declaration Status: The First Information Statement (Ext.P3) recorded by the police was treated as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act because the victim died shortly after recording it, detailing the circumstances of her death. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Witness Testimonies: The victim's mother (PW1) and father's sister (PW2) testified that the accused harassed the victim, abused her, and committed the acts leading to her suicide. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Defense Argument: The Amicus Curiae argued that Section 452 IPC did not apply because the accused and victim were nearby residents with easy access, and other evidence was hearsay, suggesting acquittal. (!) (!)
- Court's Reasoning on Trespass (S.452): The court rejected the defense, noting that despite being neighbors, the accused entered without consent, harassed the victim, and committed overt acts, satisfying the elements of house trespass. (!) (!)
- Legal Standard for Abetting Suicide (S.306): The court cited Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, stating that instigation can be inferred if the accused's conduct left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. (!) (!)
- Legal Standard for Outraging Modesty (S.354): The court defined outraging modesty as an act capable of shocking a woman's sense of decency, including tearing her nighty and covering her mouth. (!) (!)
- Evidence Evaluation: The court held that the dying declaration (Ext.P3), supported by the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and the postmortem report (Ext.P1), established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!)
- Verdict: The High Court upheld the trial court's conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal and ordering the appellant to appear to undergo the sentence. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and factual background. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details of victim's statements and witness testimonies. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments from both parties regarding the adequacy of evidence. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's analysis on the applicability of legal definitions. (Para 9 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. discussion on the evidentiary value of dying declarations. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's reasoning on the conviction based on established offences. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 7. final ruling and order of the court. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
This criminal appeal is at the instance of the accused in S.C.No.448/2003 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, and the accused impugns conviction and sentence imposed against him in the said case as per judgment dated 11.09.2006. Respondent is the State of Kerala, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor.
2. Heard the Adv.Lakshmi C.V., the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.
Perused the trial court records and the evidence in detail.
3. The genesis of the case, as could be gathered from Ext.P3 First Information Statement and Ext.P4 First Information Report in crime No.159/2002 of Vandiperiyar Police Station, is that one xxxx (original name not disclosed) attempted to commit suicide at 5.45 pm on 25.09.2002 inside the bathroom in her layam in AVT Estate, Hillash Division by pouring kerosene on her body and setting herself on fire. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital and while undergoing treatment, she died in consequence of the burn injuries sustained. The prosecution allegation is that, the reason for the suicide of xxxx is pursuant to the occurrence at 11.30 am on 25.09.2002. In the FI Statement marked as Ext.P3, xxxx herself stated that at about 11.30 am on 25.09.2002, the accused, Stephen, S/o.Jacob, reached her layam in the absence of her parents therein, since they went for work in the estate. Then Stephen demanded xxxx to go with him along with the gold ornaments she had, but she refused the said demand. He then stated that he would go outside and say that he had laid along with her. Later, Stephen caught hold of her chain and went inside a room after locking the same. Later, Stephen pushed xxxx on a cot and tore her ‘nighty’. When she raised a hue and cry, he covered her mouth and restrained her from crying. Soon she beat him by using an iron pipe on his leg. When she went outside, Stephen escaped through the upper side wall. According to the prosecution, Stephen used to follow and harass xxxx, while she was studying in 10th standard, because of his nuisance and harassment, she dropped her studies and this occurrence was thereafter. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 354 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by the accused.
4. On committal of the matter before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, for trial and disposal. The trial court, after framing charge for the said offences, tried the matter.
5. During trial, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After completion of the prosecution evidence, even though the accused was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence after questioning him under Section 313(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he did not adduce any evidence. CW1 was examined as court witness at the volition of the Court. Thereafter, on hearing both sides and on analysing the evidence, the trial court found that Ext.P3, the statement of the victim recorded by the police, is nothing but a dying declaration. Thus on analysis of Ext.P3, coupled with evidence of PW1 and PW2 and other materials, the trial court found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 354 and 306 of IPC. As a sequel thereof, the accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to
