Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
17. From the above pronouncements, and 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.
18. The phrase ‘circumstances of the transaction’, as occurring in the section, has been interpreted by the Privy Council in the judgment that is considered the locus classicus on admissibility of evidence under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, Pakala Narayana Swami v. King- Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47. In that case, the Privy Council was dealing with a case of murder wherein one of the main pieces of evidence against the accused was the statement made by the deceased to his wife. The defence argued that such evidence had to be excluded due to the hearsay rule. However, the said evidence was admitted under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and the accused was convicted. In appeal, one of the questions the Privy Council had to answer related to whether the deceased’s statement was properly admitted or not. In that context, the Privy Council observed as under: “A variety of questions has been mooted in the Indian courts as to the effect of this section. It has been suggested that the statement must be made after the transaction has taken place, that the person making it must be at any rate near death, that the “circumstances” can only include the acts done when and where the death was caused. Their Lordships are of opinion that the natural meaning of the words used does not convey any of these limitations. The statement may be made before the cause of death has arisen, or before the deceased has any reason to anticipate being killed. The circumstances must be circumstances of the transaction : general expressions indicating fear or suspicion whether of a particular individual or otherwise and not directly releated to the occasion of the death will not be admissible. But statements made by the deceased that he was proceeding to the spot where he was in fact killed, or as to his reasons for so proceeding, or that he was going to meet a particular person, or that he had been invited by such person to meet him would each of them be circumstances of the transaction, and would be so whether the person was unknown, or was not the person accused. Such a statement might indeed be exculpatory of the person accused. “Circumstances of the transaction” is a phrase no doubt that conveys some limitations. It is not as broad as the analogous use in “circumstantial evidence” which includes evidence of all relevant facts. It is on the other hand narrower than “res gestae.” Circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence : though, as for instance in a case of prolonged poisoning, they may be related to dates at a considerable distance from the date of the actual fatal dose. It will be observed that “the circumstances” are of the transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant. It is not necessary that there should be a known transaction other than that the death of the declarant has ultimately been caused, for the condition of the admissibility of the evidence is that “the cause of [the declarant’s] death comes into question.” In the present case the cause of the deceased’s death comes into question. The transaction is one in which the deceased was murdered on March 21 or 22 : and his body was found in a trunk proved to be bought on behalf SURENDRAN v. STATE OF KERELA [N. V. RAMANA, CJI.] of the accused. The statement made by the deceased on March 20 or 21 that he was setting out to the place where the accused lived, and to meet a person, the wife of the accused, who lived in the accused’s house, appears clearly to be a statement as to some of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. The statement was rightly admitted.” (Emphasis supplied)
19. This principle of law has been upheld by this Court on various occasions. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, this Court summarized the principles of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, including relating to “circumstances of the transaction”: “21. Thus, from a review of the authorities mentioned above and the clear language of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, the following propositions emerge: (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 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 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 each case. For instance, where death is a logical culmination of a continuous drama long in process and is, as it were, a finale of the story, the statement regarding each step directly connected with the end of the drama would be admissible because the entire statement would have to be read as an organic whole and not torn from the context. Sometimes statements relevant to or furnishing an immediate motive may also be admissible as being a part of the transaction of death. It is manifest that all these statements come to light only after the death of the deceased who speaks from death. For instance, where the death takes place within a very short time of the marriage or the distance of time is not spread over more than 3-4 months the statement may be admissible under Section 32. (3) The second part of clause (1) of Section 32 is yet another exception to the rule that in criminal law the evidence of a person who was not being subjected to or given an opportunity of being cross-examined by the accused, would be valueless because the place of cross-examination is taken by the solemnity and sanctity of oath for the simple reason that a person on the verge of death is not likely to make a false statement unless there is strong evidence to show that the statement was secured either by prompting or tutoring. (4) It may be important to note that Section 32 does not speak of homicide alone but includes suicide also, hence all the circumstances which may be relevant to prove a case of homicide would be equally relevant to prove a case of suicide. (5) Where the main evidence consists of statements and letters written by the deceased which are directly connected with or related to her death and which reveal a tell-tale story, the said statement would clearly fall within the four corners of Section 32 and, therefore, admissible. The distance of time alone in such cases would not make the statement irrelevant.” (emphasis supplied)
20. A reading of the above pronouncements makes it clear that, in some circumstances, 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. There are, however, certain necessary pre-conditions that must be met before the evidence is admitted.
21. The first condition is that her cause of death must come into question in the matter. This would include, for instance, matters where along with the charge under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution has also charged the accused under Sections 302, 306 or 304B of the IPC. It must be noted however that as long as the cause of her death SURENDRAN v. STATE OF KERELA [N. V. RAMANA, CJI.] has come into question, whether the charge relating to death is proved or not is immaterial with respect to admissibility.
22. The second condition is that 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. How far back the evidence can be, and how connected the evidence is to the cause of death of the deceased would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. No specific straitjacket formula or rule can be given with respect to this.
23. To the above extent therefore, the judgments of this Court in Gananath Pattnaik (supra), Inderpal (supra), Bhairon Singh (supra) and Kantilal Martaji Pandor (supra), wherein it has been 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 only because the accused stands acquitted of the charge relating to the death of the deceased, may not be correct. These judgments stand overruled to that limited extent.
24. Coming to the present case, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for this Court to undertake the exercise to determine whether the statement of the deceased can be admitted under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. As the learned counsel for the State rightly points out, this appeal can be decided even without considering this aspect, as the other evidence on record clearly proves the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
25. The fact that the deceased’s wife was being harassed is clear from the evidence of PW-3 (mother of the deceased). She had specifically stated in her chief-examination that within few days of their marriage, the appellant brought the deceased back to her parental home with the threat that if extra dowry was not given, he would leave her and marry another “beautiful” girl. As a result of such harassment, the deceased allegedly attempted suicide for the first time by consuming poison. While she was being treated in the hospital, a settlement was reached between the parties, to which appellant was also a part, wherein it was agreed that no further demands for dowry would be made. This agreement was exhibited before the Trial Court as Ext P-3. Although the High Court indicated that the said settlement was not admissible in evidence, the fact of its existence has been deposed by PW-9, who is an independent witness, as well as by PW-3. Further, it was stated by PW-3 in her chief-examination that even after the settlement, the appellant had continued to ill-treat the deceased. The deceased, due to the ill-treatment faced by her had ultimately committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree.
26. The learned counsel for the appellant, despite his best efforts, could not persuade this Court that the evidence of PW-3 was unreliable. There are three concurrent findings of the Courts below upholding the reliability of the evidence of PW-3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW-3 is unreliable because she is the mother of the deceased, cannot be countenanced. It is a settled principle of law that the evidence tendered by the related or interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground alone. However, as a rule of prudence, the Court may scrutinize the evidence of such related or interested witness more carefully. This Court in Ilangovan v. State of T.N., (2020) 10 SCC 533 has held as follows: “7. With respect to the first submission of the counsel for the appellant, regarding the testimonies of related witnesses, it is settled law that the testimony of a related or an interested witness can be taken into consideration, with the additional burden on the Court in such cases to carefully scrutinise such evidence (see Sudhakar v. State, (2018) 5 SCC 435). As such, the mere submission of the counsel for the appellant, that the testimonies of the witnesses in the case should be disregarded because they were related, without bringing to the attention of the Court any reason to disbelieve the same, cannot be countenanced.”
27. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
28. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender within a period of one week from today before the concerned authorities to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed. (Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA) SURENDRAN v. STATE OF KERELA [N. V. RAMANA, CJI.]