SURENDRAN versus STATE OF KERELA

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 13-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
675
SURENDRAN
v.
STATE OF KERELA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1080 of 2019)
MAY 13, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HIMA KOHLI. JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872: s. 32 – Dying declaration –  Admissibility
of – On facts, suicide attempt by the wife soon after marriage due
to harassment and dowry demands of husband and the family
members – Settlement between the parties, however, harassment
continued and wife committed suicide within two years of marriage
– Conviction of husband, his mother and two brothers u/ss. 304B
and 498A – Appellate court acquitted the brothers but maintained
the conviction of the husband and the mother – However, the High
Court acquitted the husband and his mother u/s.304B while upheld
their conviction u/s.498A and sentenced accordingly – Husband’s
case before this Court that since he was acquitted u/s. 304B, thus,
statement of wife could not be relied upon to sustain his conviction
u/s. 498A as it would not fall within the ambit of s. 32(1) – Held:
U/s. 32, 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 – s. 32(1)
has been used to admit statements in a case where the charge is of
a different nature or even in a civil action – Second part of the s.
32(1) specifies that such statements are relevant ‘whatever may be
the nature of proceeding in which the cause of death comes into
question – Test of admissibility u/s. 32(1) is that ‘the cause of death’
must come into question in the case regardless of the nature of the
case – Purpose for which such evidence is being sought should be
a part of the ‘circumstances of the transaction’ relating to the death
– Whether the charge relating to death is proved or not is immaterial
with respect to its admissibility – On facts, it is not necessary to
examine whether the statement of the wife can be admitted u/s 32(1)
– Other evidence on record clearly proves the husband’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt – Furthermore, evidence of the mother of the
deceased was reliable – Thus, the order passed by the High Court
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 675
675
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
does not call for interference – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304B and
498A.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 relates to
the admissibility of statements made by a person who cannot be
called as witness. The Section itself specifies the circumstances
under which such statements become relevant. In the instant
case, the concern is with one such circumstance, that is, when
the person who made the statement is dead. [Para 9][681-D-E]
1.2 To rely on Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, one of the
main conditions laid out in the sub-section is that the issue must
arise “in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes
into question”. [Para 11][682-D]
1.3 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”. Illustration (a) to
Section 32 of the Evidence Act refers to a statement made by a
deceased in a rape case which may be admitted under the section,
which was the position in India even prior to the enactment of
the Evidence Act. [Para 14][684-B-D]
1.4 The test for admissibility under the Section 32(1) of the
Evidence Act, 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. [Para 17][686-D-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
677
1.5 In some circumstances, the evidence of a deceased wife
with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge
un

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