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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.