2009 (5) TMI 975 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of oral evidence u/s 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
2. Applicability of Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
3. Conviction under Section 498A, IPC.

Summary:

1. Admissibility of Oral Evidence u/s 32(1) of the Evidence Act:
The primary issue was whether the oral evidence of witnesses about what the deceased had told them against the accused regarding the treatment meted out to her is admissible u/s 32(1) of the Evidence Act to sustain a conviction under Section 498A, IPC. The court referred to the legal position established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which states that Section 32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, provided the statement relates to the cause of death or circumstances leading to the death. However, the court concluded that the statements made by the deceased to her brothers (PW-4 and PW-5) did not relate to the cause of her death or any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death, as her death was accidental and not homicidal or suicidal. Therefore, such evidence is inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.

2. Applicability of Section 6 of the Evidence Act:
The court also examined whether Section 6 of the Evidence Act, which deals with the relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction, could be applied. Section 6 allows hearsay evidence if it is almost contemporaneous with the acts and there is no interval for fabrication. The court referred to the decision in Sukhar v. State of U.P., which states that for hearsay evidence to be admissible under Section 6, it must be substantially contemporaneous with the fact and not merely a narrative of a past event. The court found that the statements made by the deceased to PW-4 and PW-5 did not meet these criteria and thus, Section 6 was not applicable.

3. Conviction under Section 498A, IPC:
The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 498A, IPC, based on the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5, who stated that the deceased had told them about the torture and harassment she faced. The High Court upheld this conviction. However, the Supreme Court found that the evidence provided by PW-4 and PW-5 was inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and that there was no other provision under which the statement of a dead person could be looked into in evidence. Consequently, the court held that there was no admissible evidence to sustain the conviction under Section 498A, IPC.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Section 498A, IPC, and ordered the release of the accused if not required in any other case.