How to appreciate evidence if suicide letter written by accused was recovered from body of deceased?

  The underlying principle deducible from the observations extracted above is that though it is not impermissible to base a finding with regard to authorship of a document solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert but, as a Rule of prudence, because of imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting and its accepted fallibility, such opinion has to be relied with caution and may be accepted if, on its own assessment, the Court is satisfied that the internal and external evidence relating to the document in question supports the opinion of the expert and it is safe to accept his opinion.{Para 65}

66. In the instant case, with regard to authorship of the suicide letter, the Trial Court though returned a finding in favour of the prosecution by relying solely on the expert report but did not record its satisfaction having regard to its own observations with respect to the admitted and disputed writings. It also did not examine whether in the proven facts and circumstances of the case it would be safe to rely on the expert report. It be noted that Section 73 of the IEA, 1872 enables a Court to compare the words or figures written by a person present in Court with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. The Trial Court therefore could have undertaken such an exercise. But, in the instant case, there appears no such exercise undertaken by the Trial Court. What is important is that in the instant case there is no witness statement identifying the handwriting of Neeraj or disclosing that Neeraj wrote the suicide letter in his presence. There is also no evidence to explain the relevance of the contents of the suicide letter. Interestingly, the suicide letter indicts one Chhote Porwal. As to why such indictment was made; whether it was with reference to some other event contemplated, the prosecution evidence is silent. Besides that, there is no evidence to show that the investigating officer queried person(s) conversant with the handwriting of the deceased to Rule out possibility of the suicide letter being in the writing of the deceased himself. In our view, such an exercise was necessary to lend assurance to the prosecution story of the suicide letter being written by Neeraj to mask the murder, because, firstly, the death on its face was not suicidal, and, secondly, it could have ruled out possibility of it being written in contemplation of some other event. Seen in that light, barring the expert report, there exists no internal or external evidence to lend assurance to the prosecution story that the suicide letter was written by Neeraj.

67. In addition to the above, we find it quite difficult to accept as to why Neeraj would leave a suicide letter written by him in a pocket of the trouser worn by the deceased, particularly, when the injuries even to a layman were homicidal. Notably, there were eight ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased. 

68. A glance at those injuries would reflect that five of them were perforating or penetrating wounds cavity deep. Out of those, two were on chest and three on abdomen.  Such injuries are clearly homicidal therefore, masking this homicidal event as a suicide does not appeal to logic. Further, the injuries are not of same dimension. In these circumstances, a question would arise as to why would Neeraj who has no proven connection with the deceased or the co-Accused Santosh, or for that matter the apartment where the dead body was found, make a futile effort to mask the event of murder and thereby leave a trace of his own culpability. To answer that, the prosecution has led no admissible evidence. Thus, even if we assume that a suicide letter was found, at what stage it was written - prior to, or post the murder, or in connection with some other event which the deceased contemplated - is anybody's guess.

69. In light of the discussion above, taking into account that Neeraj has denied the incriminating circumstance of writing the suicide letter and no internal or external evidence, save the expert report, supports the writing of suicide letter by Neeraj, we are of the considered view that though the expert evidence was admissible as an opinion on the writing in the suicide letter but, on overall assessment of the evidence led by the prosecution, solely on its basis, it would be extremely unsafe to hold that the suicide letter retrieved from the trouser of the deceased was written by Neeraj.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 575 and 576 of 2011

Decided On: 28.04.2023

 Santosh  Vs.   State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0499/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Under which circumstances the court should not rely on recovery of knife recovered as per S 27 of Evidence Act?

 Circumstances (f), (g) (h) and (i) - Re: Disclosure statements, consequential discoveries and their connect with crime.

71. With regard to the making of disclosure and the consequential discoveries/recoveries, according to the prosecution on 23.09.2000 the two Accused made disclosures assuring recovery of weapon of assault and blood-stained clothes worn by them at the time of commission of murder. But, admittedly, no discovery could be effected pursuant thereto. Consequently, both the courts below discarded the disclosure statement made on 23.09.2000. However, according to the prosecution, another set of disclosure statements were made on 25.09.2000. In pursuance thereof, a knife kept in the bushes behind a hospital was recovered at the instance of Neeraj and blood-stained clothes, kept at the rooftop of the same building, were recovered at the instance of Santosh @ Bhure. Importantly, both the Accused have denied such disclosures and recovery at their instance.

81. As regards recovery of knife at the instance of Neeraj, the same has been denied by Neeraj and there appears no independent witness to support it, inasmuch as PW13, touted as a public witness, turned out to be a special police officer and insofar as the other police witnesses are concerned, we have already doubted their conduct in setting up disclosure statements. Moreover, the place from where recovery is made is accessible to all and sundry. Otherwise also, its incriminating value is extremely limited because, firstly, there is no forensic evidence connecting the knife with the crime; secondly, the knife is a common knife which could easily be available; thirdly, the wounds found on the body of the deceased were of different dimensions giving rise to possibility of use of more weapon than one; and, fourthly, the entire exercise of recovery does not inspire our confidence, particularly, because the first attempt to recover had failed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 575 and 576 of 2011

Decided On: 28.04.2023

 Santosh  Vs.   State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0499/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether landlord should prove as per S 106 of the Evidence Act that who has murdered his tenant if he owned premises where the murder was committed?

 Circumstance (a) - Re: Apartment from where the dead body was found stood in the tenancy and possession of Santosh.

29. Insofar as tenancy of the apartment being with Santosh is concerned, the same has been proved by the testimonies of PW3 and PW4. Nothing material could come out from their cross-examination, nor any such suggestion has been given to them, as may cast a doubt on their deposition in respect thereof. No doubt Santosh denied tenancy and claimed that there exists no documentary proof in respect thereof but as there could be an oral tenancy also, in our view, the finding returned by the courts below in respect thereof calls for no interference. However, mere tenancy of the apartment being with Santosh by itself is not sufficient to hold him guilty as there is no general presumption against the owner/tenant of a property with regard to his/her guilt if a dead body with homicidal injuries is found in his/her property. No doubt, if the prosecution succeeds in proving a chain of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding one's guilt then, in absence of proper explanation, the Court can always draw an appropriate conclusion with respect to his/her guilt with the aid of Section 106 of the IEA, 1872. But, if the chain of circumstances is not established, mere failure of the Accused to offer an explanation is not sufficient to hold him guilty.

30. Expounding the law on the scope and applicability of Section 106 of the IEA, 1872, in Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer MANU/SC/0023/1956 : AIR 1956 SC 404, this Court observed:

9. This lays down the general Rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the Accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the Section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the Accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an Accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried.

In short, the prosecution has failed to demonstrate (a) that the apartment was locked or in exclusive control of Santosh @ Bhure and (b) that the deceased was in the company of Santosh or Neeraj on 11.09.2000 or any time thereafter, till recovery of the body of the deceased.

In light of the discussion above and in the facts of the case, in our considered view, the mere presence of the dead body in the apartment let out to Santosh is not such a clinching circumstance which, on its own, could sustain Santosh's conviction with the aid of Section 106 of the IEA, 1872 by shifting the onus on him to explain as to under what circumstances the dead body with multiple injuries was found there.

b) Mere presence of a dead body in an apartment is not enough to convict a tenant or owner of that apartment for murder, particularly when there is no admissible evidence to prove that around the plausible time of murder the Accused was present there, or was last seen with the deceased, and had motive to finish off the deceased;

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 575 and 576 of 2011

Decided On: 28.04.2023

 Santosh  Vs.   State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0499/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Determining the Court's Perspective in a Case Involving Circumstantial Evidence with Two Possible Views: One Pointing to the Guilt and the Other to the Innocence of the Accused

Adding on to the aforesaid legal principles, in Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0034/2019 : (2019) 19 SCC 447, a three-judge Bench of this Court held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt and the other to his innocence, the Accused is entitled to the benefit of one which is favourable to him. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:

18. ... Though the materials on record hold some suspicion towards them, but the prosecution has failed to elevate its case from the realm of "may be true" to the plane of "must be true" as is indispensably required in law for conviction on a criminal charge. It is trite to state that in a criminal trial, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute proof.

19. ... in the case of circumstantial evidence, two views are possible on the case of record, one pointing to the guilt of the Accused and the other his innocence. The Accused is indeed entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him.

{Para 25}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 575 and 576 of 2011

Decided On: 28.04.2023

 Santosh  Vs.   State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0499/2023.

Print Page

Whether court can quash prosecution for abetment of suicide if suicide note bears name of accused?

We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first Respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first Respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against first Respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first Respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the Respondent.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1487 of 2018 

Decided On: 28.11.2018

 Narayan Malhari Thorat  Vs.  Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

U.U. Lalit and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/1355/2018

Print Page

Whether court can treat Suicide Note as Dying Declaration?

Whether Suicide Note can be treated as Dying Declaration:

29. Nilesh (P.W.-7), brother of the victim has also produced the suicide note (Ex. P-6) written by the deceased, taken in possession vide memo Ex. P-7 on 23.10.1998 at about 7.30 am. Her dead body was taken in possession on 23.10.1998 vide Memo Ex. P-10. The time of death is mentioned as 22/23.10.1998 before 3.00 am. In the suicide note (Ex. P-6) dated 22.10.1998, she has written that she does not want to live the life of disgrace nor the police will permit her to live gracefully. She has stated that to avoid disgrace to her and her parents, she is taking this step. She stated that it was her fault that she sat in their vehicle. They were drunk and that she sat in their vehicle by mistake and they thought that she is the girl of loose-character. In the suicide note she is categorical that she will not be able to live a life of disgrace. She stated that it will be better if she dies rather than to live a life of disgrace to her and her family members. She has stated that both of the accused had liquor and that whatever has happened to her has disrupted and ruined the life and that she does not want to ruin the life of the boys by punishing them. She was violated on 17.10.1998. She committed suicide after four days. From her suicide note, it is clear that she was violated and that she does not want to live life of disgrace. She has tried to convey that the accused were hungry (for sex) and that she became their food (victim). The entire reading of the dying declaration does not absolve the accused though she said that they be not punished.

30. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Lalji Dusadh (supra), was a case of trial for an offence under Sections 392 and 397 of the IPC wherein the dying declaration was found to be admissible. It was held that the words of Section 32 of the Act are very wide and it is not necessary that the charge should be one of homicide. The evidence as to the cause of death was relevant to the charge of robbery and consequently the cause of death i.e. the assault committed by the appellant came in question in the trial. 

36. The suicide note which is a dying declaration and just on the day of writing of such letter and five days of the occurrence, the dead body was taken in possession at about 9.30 a.m. on 23.10.1998 vide memo Ex. P-10 and the time of death is mentioned as 22/23.10.1998 before 3.00 am in the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd October, 1998. However, the suicide note is corroborated by the other evidence on record, which we discuss hereinafter.

37. In view of the evidence on record, the statement Ex. P-6 in the handwriting of the victim proved by Nilesh (P.W.-7) is a dying declaration, as she died on the same day, which fact is evident from the memo Ex. P-10 having been prepared around 9.30 a.m. on 23.10.1998, wherein the time of death is mentioned as "before 3.00 a.m. on 23.10.1998". The argument that the suicide note does not name the accused, is of no consequence, as the presence of the victim with the accused at the place of occurrence is proved from the statement of Kashi Singh (P.W.-1), Kishan Singh (P.W.-4) and also Manoj Sharma (P.W.-14), who recorded the first information report. The suicide note has to be read as a whole and not a line can be picked up from out of context.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 541/2000

Decided On: 01.11.2018

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.  Mohammad Shahid and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Hemant Gupta, C.J. and Atul Sreedharan, J.

Author:Hemant Gupta, C.J.

Citation: MANU/MP/0583/2018

Print Page

Whether accused can be prosecuted for abetment of suicide if suicide note bears his name?

Death by commission of suicide must have been the desired object of the abettors; and with that in view they must have instigated, goaded, urged or encouraged the victim in commission of suicide. The instigation may be by provoking or inciting the person committing suicide and this instigation may be gathered by positive acts done by the abettors or by omission in the doing of a thing. Thus, the acts or omission committed by the abettors immediately before the commission of suicide are vital. The mere fact that certain persons have been named in the suicidal note to be responsible for his death is not by itself a ground to fasten one with the charge of abetment. In terms of Section 107, it must prima facie appear to hold that the person named in the suicide note to be responsible for commission of suicide has abetted in the act. The act for conduct of the accused, even if there may be any, however, insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts consequence of suicide.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 164 of 2018

Decided On: 30.01.2019

Gulab   Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S. Shinde and R.G. Avachat, JJ.

Print Page

Whether prosecution for murder can be quashed if suicide note is in handwriting of deceased?

 No doubt, it is recorded
in the post-mortem report that the cause of death in this case was
asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and the suicide note is in the
handwriting of deceased, but this by itself cannot rule out the possibility
of murder being committed by petitioners. It is so said because the
suicide note is undated and the aspect of ante-mortem hanging cannot be
considered in abstract by this Court in the light of medical literature,
sought to be relied upon by respondents. Whether death of deceased was

homicidal or suicidal is an aspect which cannot be pre-judged at this initial stage. In any case, presence of lividity over the back and other areas prima facie justifies framing of charge under Section 302/34 IPC, as at this initial stage, only a prima facie opinion is to be formed. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 12, 2019
 CRL.REV.P. 645/2017 & Crl.M.A. 14133/2017

SUKHBIR KATARIA Vs  STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

Citation: 2019 SCC ONLINE Del 7603

Print Page

When prosecution for abetment to commit suicide is liable to be quashed?

 It is required to be observed that, the offence of
abetment could be termed complete only when there is an instigation
or engagement in the alleged conspiracy of commission of crime.

There is hardly anything on record to form an opinion that, the act of
petitioners herein constituted conspiracy to commit the crime of
abetment. The observations of the Apex Court in the matter of
constitution of abetment is required to be taken into account i.e. (a)
Instigating a person to commit an offence, (b) engaging in conspiracy
to commit it or (c) intentionally aiding a person to commit it. The
abetment is required to be coupled with the criminal intention i.e.
mens rea, so as to brought against the accused person charge of
commission of crime in question. It is, therefore, necessary to show
that, the petitioners have intentionally aided the suicide by late
Yuvraj, which is not brought on record either in the complaint or in
other investigation material. The Apex Court, while dealing with the
issue of abetment has observed that, the abetment involves mental
process, wherein the element of instigation, is very much required to
be established. The intention to instigate in aid to a person in
committing suicide is required to be brought on record and in
absence of positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid
the commission of suicide, the case would not stand against the
accused persons. An appropriate support can be drawn in support of
the above referred proposition on the judgment of the Apex Court in
the matter of Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana reported in
2008 (1) S.C.C. 2015. The proximity and nexus of the act alleged
against the petitioners and conduct and behavior of petitioners, while

establishing the link of abetment, is absent in the present case, as is
apparent from the fact that, the alleged abetment, according to the
complainant, begun in September 2013 resulting into suicide of
Yuvraj on 24/02/2013 i.e. almost after period of five months.
44. In the light of above, the reliance is placed by learned
Counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of this Court in the matter
of Binod s/o Ratan Sarkar & ors. (supra) and the Apex Court in the
matter of Netai Datta (supra) are required to be taken note of. The
Apex Court, while dealing with the issue as regards the offence
under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code has observed that, it would
stand only if there is an abetment for commission of crime and the
parameters of the abetment have been clearly established, which
provides for instigating any person to do a thing.
45. From the narration of the contents in the F.I.R. and other
material, in any case, a conclusion cannot be drawn that, there was
an instigation at the behest of the petitioners, which has resulted into
commission of the crime. It is also required to be taken note of the
fact that, there is no suicide note left behind by the deceased Yuvraj
pointing out fingers towards the commission of offence by the
petitioners. As such, the ingredients of Sections 306, 107 and 108 of
Indian Penal Code are not satisfied in the present case.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 629 OF 2014
 Ratan Pundlik Salunkhe,

v
 State of Maharashtra,

 CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
 N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.

Dated : 13TH MARCH, 2015
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)4858

Print Page

When offence of abetment of suicide U/S 306 of IPC is not made out?

The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by
this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he/she committed suicide.

        33.  Generally, the person who commits suicide used to/liked to leave a
suicide note naming  certain person as responsible for his committing
suicide. Merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note we are 
not to immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender under
section 306 I.P.C.

        34. The contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances
have to be examined to find out whether it is abetment within the meaning of
section 306 I.P.C. read with section 107 I.P.C. There may be a case where in
the suicide note victim had named a person, who is responsible for his
committing suicide, but, on proper analysis, section 306 I.P.C. may not be
attracted to him.

        35. Recently, in Rajamannar v. State rep. by The Inspector of Police,
Sewapet, Police Station,Thiruvallur District (Crl.O.P. No. 8230/2014 dated
3.4.2014). A-2 introduced A-1 to the deceased as a person who will get
railway jobs for money. Relying on this, the deceased collected money from
many and gave it to A-1. Ultimately, A-1 cheated him. The job seekers
pressurised the deceased to return their money. Under these circumstances,
the deceased and his family members have committed suicide and the deceased   
left a suicide note that A-2 is responsible for their death. A-2 was arrested
for an offence under section 306 I.P.C.

        36. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, this Court came to
the conclusion that prima facie section 306 I.P.C. is not attracted towards
A-2 and observed as under:
?7. On reading the entire suicide note from the beginning to end, it is seen
that A-1 duped Sugumar, who received money from many persons. They have asked    
him and humiliated him. Unable to bear this humiliation, Sugumar committed
suicide.

8. For an offence under Section 306 IPC, there are twin requirements, namely,
suicide and abetment to commit suicide. No need to explain what is suicide.
But what is abetment has to be understood. It is not stated in Section 306
IPC. It is 'instigation', 'provocation', compelling a person to do certain
things or not to do certain things. This may be by words, deeds or writing or
even by signs. May be humiliation, degrading a person in the presence of
others. The act must be such that it must force, desire, compel a person to
take the extreme decision. But, it must be a positive act. Thus, the act
alleged to have committed on the part of the accused must have played a key
role for the victim to take a decision to commit suicide.

9. If a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits
suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits
suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer
respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide. For
the wrong decision taken by a coward, fool, idiot, a man of weak mentality, a
man of frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his
committing suicide. Now, in this case, the suicide note shows that unable to
bear the humiliation given by the job seekers, Sugumar committed suicide. For
this, petitioner cannot be blamed. Further, no act or deed in the nature of a
positive act forced Sugumar and his family members emanated from the 
petitioner to force them to commit suicide. The conclusion would be Sugumar
died like a coward. Instead of protecting the family, he perished like an
unsuccessful man in life foolishly he also took along with him his other
family members also. For this, how can the petitioner be directly blamed.?

        37. Sometimes, the decision to commit suicide might be taken by the
victim himself/herself, unaccompanied by any act or instigation etc. on the
part of the accused. A person may die like a coward. On his failure in the
examination, a student may commit suicide. They are weak minded. They are  
persons of frail mentality. For their foolish mentality/decision, another
person cannot be blamed. 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 16.06.2016  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS            

Crl.A.(MD)No.142 of 2016 


Manikandan                            
Vs.

State,
rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Print Page

Whether evidence of father and brother of deceased wife can be disbelieved on the basis of subsequently produced suicide note by accused?

So far as the suicide note is concerned, Archana is said to have stated that she is taking the step “suicide” because her mental condition is not good and that nobody should be held responsible for her act. It is pertinent to note that suicide note was not discovered during investigation but it was later produced by the appellants. When PW-1 (father of Archana) was confronted with the suicide note, PW-1 denied it to be in the hand writing of Archana. Appellants have not taken steps to prove the suicide note to be in the hand writing of Archana. Even assuming the suicide note to be true, the fact remains that the death of Archana was unnatural. The contents of the suicide note does not affect consistent version of PW-1 and PW-2.

Supreme Court of India

V.K.Mishra & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 28 July, 2015

Citation; AIR 2015 SC3043

Bench: T.S. Thakur, R.K. Agrawal, R. Banumathi

Read full judgment here; click here

Print Page

Whether Suicide note written by deceased found in her clothes can be treated as dying declaration?

In the case ''State v. Maregowda, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 376 (Karnataka) (DB)'', it was held  that ''A suicide note written found in the clothes of the deceased it is in the nature of dying declaration  and is admissible in evidence under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act''. -1

What is equally curious was that the rejection of Ex. P. 3-suicide note by the Trial Court on the ground that identification of the handwriting of the deceased by the father and other relations was not sufficient, since they are interested witnesses. Who else could identify the daughter's signature better than the father? Equally erroneous was the reasoning of the Trial Court that the suicide note cannot be accepted because it was written on the reverse side of Electrol card and written in red ink. We asked ourselves the question where was the need for the Trial Court to reject Ex. P. 3 merely because it was in red ink or on the reverse of a electral card. The Trial Court conveniently forgot that if the suicide note was fabricated there would have been allegations with respect to the dowry. All that Ex. P. 3 states is that certain people owe monies to her and her husband was the main cause for her suicide. The deceased further states in the suicide note that the difficulty she had faced should not come to anybody else. A prayer in anguish on brink of death cannot be rejected for flippant reasons. The Trial Court hurt the memory of the deceased by giving such insensitive reasons.

15-A. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Ex. P. 3 which was identified by the relations of the deceased is a genuine document found in the clothes of the deceased and was undoubtedly in the nature of a dying declaration which was perfectly admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.1

Karnataka High Court

State By Kamakshipalya Police, ... vs Maregowda And Ors. on 27 August, 2001

Equivalent citations: 2001 CriLJ 4491, I (2002) DMC 458, ILR 2001 KAR 4657

Author: K Rajaratnam

Bench: K Rajaratnam, V Sabhahit

Print Page