BHAIRON SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 875 · Decided: 29-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

---t 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 875 
~ 
BHAIRON SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No.1124 of 2009) 
MAY 29, 2009 
B 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
Sections 304-B, 306, 498A - Case under s.304-B and c 
306 - Death of wife - Husband acquitted - Death neither 
"'""-
homicidal or suicidal but accidental - Oral evidence of 
witnesses about what the deceased told them against the 
accused about the treatment meted out to her - Whether 
admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act to sustain 
D 
conviction under Section 498A /PC - Held: Evidence of PW-
4. and PW-5 about what the deceased had told them against 
the accused about the torture and harassment is inadmissible 
under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act - Such evidence 
cannot be looked into for any purpose - Evidence Act, 1872, E 
Section 32(1 ). 
+ 
lnder Pal vs. State of M.P. (2001) 10 SCC 736, relied 
..... 
on. 
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 
F 
(1984) 4 sec 116, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1984) 4 sec 116 
referred to 
Para 4 
.+ 
G 
..... -
c2001) 10 sec 736 
relied on 
Para 12 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1124 of 2009. 
875 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
876 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 03.01.2008 of the High 
Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 1993. 
R.P. Gupta, Jamshed Bey and Parmanand_Gaur for the 
Appellants. 
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The questio:n that arises for consideration in this appeal 
by special leave is : in a case where accused has been 
acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 
306 IPC, and the death of wife is neither homicidal nor suicidal 
but accidental, whether the oral evidence of witnesses about 
what the deceased had told them against the accused about 
the treatment meted out to her is admissible under Section 32 
(1) of the Evidence Act to sustain conviction under Section 
498A, IPC? 
thus: 
3. Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads 
"32. Cases in which stateme(lf of relevant fact by person 
who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.--
Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a 
person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has 
become incapable of giving evidence, or whose 
attendance cannot be procured, without an amount of delay 
or expense which under the circumstances of the case 
appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves 
relevant facts in the following cases:--
(1) when it relates to cause of death.-When the statement 
is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to 
any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted 
in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's 
~
t 
J 
' 
-~
~ 
r 
L 
..... 
{ 
' t 
I • 
{--
BHAIRON SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 877 
& ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.] 
death comes into question. 
Such statements are relevant whether the person 
who made them was or was not, at the time when they were 
made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be 
the nat·Jre of the proceeding in which the cause of his death 
comes into question." 
4. The legal position relating to the admissibility of 
evidence under Section 32(1) has come up for consideration 
before this court time and again. It is not necessary to multiply 
A 
B 
the authorities in this regard as reference to a three Judge Bench 
C · 
decision of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State 
of Maharashtra, 1 will suffice. Regarding the application of rule 
under Section 32(1) Evidence Act, Fazal Ali,J. culled out the 
legal position as follows: 
D 
"(1) Section 32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and 
makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, 
whether the death is a homicide or a suicide, provided the 
statement relates to the cause of death, or exhibits 
circumstances leading to the death. In this respect,as 
E 
indicated above, the Indian Evidence Act, in view of the 
peculiar conditions of our society and the diverse nature 
and character of our people, has thought it necessary to 
widen the sphere of Section 32 to avoid injustice. 
(2) The test of proximity cannot be too literally construed 
F 
and practically reduced to a cut-and-dried formula of 
_universal application so as to be confined in a straitjacket. 
Distance of time would depend or vary with the 
circumstances of ea

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.