The Supreme Court noted that under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, 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,” the Court observed.
The Court then placed reliance on the decisions in Queen v. Bissorunjun Mookerjee (1866), Lalji Dusadh v. King-Emperor (1928) and Parmanand Ganga Prasad v. Emperor (1940) to hold that:
“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.”
Therefore, the Court was of the view that 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 after the previously stated pre-conditions are followed.
Accordingly, the Court held that the judgments in Gananath Pattnaik, Inderpal, Bhairon Singh and Kantilal Martaji Pandor, to the extent it 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, would stand overruled.
Source: Barandbench
