LALITA versus VISHWANATH & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1643 · Decided: 30-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1643 : 2025 INSC 173
Lalita 
v. 
Vishwanath & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1086 of 2017)
30 January 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the 
High Court acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable 
u/ss.306, 498A, and 34 IPC; and incase the first informant dies 
before stepping into the witness box, whether the contents of such 
FIR can be proved through the evidence of the Investigating Officer 
and read into the evidence.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 498A, 34 – Abetment of suicide – 
FIR by the father that his daughter committed suicide as she 
was constantly harassed by the respondents-husband, in-laws 
and first wife of the husband – Respondents held guilty for 
offence punishable u/ss.306, 498A rw s.34 – However, the 
High Court acquitted them – Since father of the deceased died 
before the trial commenced, the mother of the deceased-de 
facto complainant, challenging the impugned judgment: 
Held: No case made out for interference – No error of law committed 
by the High Court in acquitting all the four accused persons – No 
cogent or any reliable evidence on the basis of which it could be 
said that the accused persons abetted the commission of suicide – 
Mere harassment or cruelty not sufficient to infer abetment – There 
has to be some credible evidence that the accused persons aided 
or instigated the deceased in some manner to take the drastic step 
of putting an end to her life – Even with the aid of presumption 
u/s.113A of the Evidence Act, difficult to say that the accused 
persons abetted the commission of suicide – Furthermore, the trial 
court permitted the Investigating Officer to prove the contents of 
the FIR and read into evidence as per s.67 of the Evidence Act – 
Courts below incorrect in saying that in the absence of the first 
1644
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
informant, the police officer can prove the contents of the FIR as 
per s.67 of the Evidence Act – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.67, 113. 
[Paras 20-22, 26]
First Information Report – Proving contents of FIR through 
the Investigating Officer – Death of first informant before 
stepping into the witness box, the contents of such FIR, if can 
be proved through the evidence of the Investigating Officer 
and read into the evidence:
Held: If the informant dies, the FIR can be, used as a substantive 
evidence – Prerequisite condition must be fulfilled before the FIR is 
taken as a substantive piece of evidence, the death of the informant 
must have nexus with the FIR filed or somehow having some link 
with any evidence regarding the FIR – FIR lodged by a deceased 
person to be treated as substantial, its contents must be proved and 
has to be corroborated – In case the death of the informant has no 
nexus with the complaint lodged, he died a natural death and did 
not succumb to the injuries inflicted on him in relation to a matter, 
the contents of the FIR would not be admissible in evidence – In 
such circumstances, the contents cannot be proved through the 
Investigating Officer – Investigating Officer, in the course of his 
deposition, should not be permitted to depose the exact contents 
of the FIR so as to make them admissible in evidence – All that 
is permissible in law is that the Investigating Officer can, in his 
deposition, identify the signature of the first informant and that of 
his own on the FIR and he can depose about the factum of the 
FIR being registered by him on a particular date on a particular 
police station – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.67. [Paras 32, 34, 35, 39]
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.8, 32 – First Information Report – 
Purpose – Importance as evidence – Explained. [Paras 29-31]
Case Law Cited
Ram Pyarey v. the State of Uttar Pradesh [2025] 1 SCR 484; 
Damodar Prasad v. State of U.P. (1975) 3 SCC 851 : AIR 1975 
SC 757; Munna Raja v. State of M.P. [1976] 2 SCR 764 : (1976) 
3 SCC 104 : AIR 1976 SC 2199; Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab 
(1997) 11 SCC 215 : AIR 1997 SC 3231; Hazarilal v. State (Delhi 
Administration) [1980] 2 SCR 1053 : (1980) 2 SCC 390 : AIR 
1980 SC 873; Umrao Singh v. State of M.P., 1961 Criminal L.J. 
270 – referred to.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 
1645
Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence 
Act, 1872.
List of Keywords
Abetment of suicide; Informant passed away before the trial 
commenced; Abetted commission of suicide; Mer

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