CRUELTY U.S 498-A IPC – DYING DECLARATION TO THE FATHER OF THE DECEASED CANNOT BE USED UNTIL THE DEATH WAS IN QUESTION:
Mr.Kannan rightly contended that such a statement can be construed as a dying declaration, only when Shenbagavalli’s death comes into question and not for convicting the appellant under Section 498-A IPC. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gananath Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa [(2002) 2 SCC 619]. The State has not chosen to challenge the acquittal of the appellant of the offence under Section 304-B/306 IPC and therefore, the cause of Shenbagavalli’s death is not in question before this Court. Hence, the statement of Shenbagavalli to Logabiran (P.W.1) that the appellant harassed her for dowry, is beyond the ken Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and cannot be used to sustain the conviction under Section 498-A IPC in the absence of any other evidence. Therefore, the solitary evidence of Logabiran (P.W.1) does not inspire the confidence of this Court to sustain the charges under Section 498-A and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 [Sai Premnath vs. State rep. by The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope Range, Chennai – CRL.A.No.388 of 2012 – 07.11.2019].
Download full Judgment here: 498A
