Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether oral evidence of witnesses repeating what the deceased allegedly told them about cruelty and harassment was admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or under Section 6 of that Act, to sustain a conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when the death was held to be accidental and not homicidal or suicidal.
Analysis: Section 32(1) is an exception to the hearsay rule and admits only statements of a deceased person that relate to the cause of death or to circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death. The statement must have a proximate and organic connection with the death and cannot be extended to remote or unrelated complaints of past ill-treatment. Where the offence under Section 498A stands alone and the death itself is not in issue for that charge, statements of the deceased about cruelty, when not connected with the death, do not fall within Section 32(1). Section 6 also does not apply unless the statement forms part of the same transaction and is substantially contemporaneous with the occurrence. Mere narrative of earlier grievances is not res gestae.
Conclusion: The evidence repeating the deceased's statements was inadmissible, and it could not be used to prove cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.