[Section 498A] Dying Declaration of wife admissible to prove cruelty even if husband acquitted of charges relating to her death: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the dying declaration of wife under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act can be used against husband to prove cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) even if he is acquitted of charges related to her death [Surendran v. State of Kerala]..A three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli, however, noted that the same is subject to two pre-conditions:1. Wife's cause of death must come into question in the matter;2. 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..The Court was hearing an appeal assailing the decision of the Kerala High Court which had acquitted the appellant for dowry death under Section 304B of the IPC while confirming his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year..The appellant argued that the suicide note and other statements made by the deceased cannot be relied upon by the Court for convicting him under Section 498A of the IPC as they do not fall within the scope of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 32 lays down cases in which statement by a person who is dead or cannot be found, is relevant and can be relied upon as evidence. Section 32(1) says that such statement is relevant when it relates to the cause of death of the person.Relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, (2002) and appearing to have relied on decisions in Inderpal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001), Bhairon Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009) and Kantilal Martaji Pandor v. State of Gujarat (2013), the appellant argued that once the Court has acquitted him of the charge relating to the death of his wife, the evidence of the deceased wife would not be admissible to prove the charge under Section 498A of the IPC simpliciter as then the case would no longer relate to the death of his deceased wife.The respondent argued that there was sufficient evidence on record to make out a clear case for convicting the appellant under Section 498A..The Supreme Court noted that under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the phrase “cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question” is broader than merely referring only to cases where there is a charge of murder, suicide, or dowry death."There have been instances where Courts have used Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act to admit statements in a case where the charge is of a different nature or even in a civil action. This is abundantly clear from the second part of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act which specifies that such statements are relevant “whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question," the Court observed.The Court then placed reliance on the decisions in Queen v. Bissorunjun Mookerjee (1866), Lalji Dusadh v. King-Emperor (1928) and Parmanand Ganga Prasad v. Emperor (1940) to hold that:"The wordings of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, it appears that the test for admissibility under the said section is not that the evidence to be admitted should directly relate to a charge pertaining to the death of the individual, or that the charge relating to death could not be proved. Rather, the test appears to be that the cause of death must come into question in that case, regardless of the nature of the proceeding, and that the purpose for which such evidence is being sought to be admitted should be a part of the ‘circumstances of the transaction’ relating to the death."Therefore, the Court was of the view that 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 after the previously stated pre-conditions are followed.Accordingly, the Court held that the judgments in Gananath Pattnaik, Inderpal, Bhairon Singh and Kantilal Martaji Pandor, to the extent it held that the evidence of the deceased cannot be admitted under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act to prove the charge under Section 498A of the IPC, would stand overruled..Thus, it confirmed the judgment passed by the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 498A and sentencing him to one year imprisonment. .[Read Judgment]