Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction under Sections 452, 354, and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), upholding the trial court’s judgment. Justice A. Badharudeen held that:
“Ext.P3 would satisfy the essentials of a dying declaration, and the trial court rightly found the same as a dying declaration… The evidence would suggest that she was so upset in consequence of the overt acts… and committed suicide.”
The Court also held that the sentence imposed—7 years RI under Section 306, 5 years under Section 452, and 1 year under Section 354—was moderate given the gravity of offences. It directed the appellant to surrender and undergo the sentence.
Facts
The case originated from a tragic incident in which a young woman set herself ablaze and later died of burn injuries. On the morning of 25.09.2002, the accused entered her residence (layam) when her parents were away. He allegedly demanded that she go with him along with her gold ornaments. Upon refusal, he threatened to falsely accuse her of intimacy, pushed her onto a cot, tore her nightwear, and restrained her from raising an alarm. The victim hit him with an iron pipe, after which he fled. That evening, deeply distressed, she attempted suicide by self-immolation and succumbed to her injuries on 27.10.2002. The accused was charged under Sections 452, 354, and 306 IPC and convicted by the trial court.
Issues
- Whether the trial court rightly held that the accused committed house trespass under Section 452 IPC?
- Whether the accused’s conduct constituted outraging the modesty of the victim under Section 354 IPC?
- Whether the accused abetted the victim’s suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC?
- Whether Ext.P3 First Information Statement could be accepted as a dying declaration?
- Whether the trial court’s conviction and sentence required interference?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The Amicus Curiae appointed for the appellant argued that the conviction was unsustainable due to the following:
- Ext.P3 was a First Information Statement and not recorded with the formalities of a dying declaration.
- The accused and the deceased were neighbours living in adjacent ‘layams’; hence, his entry could not amount to house trespass.
- The evidence from PW1 (mother) and PW2 (relative) was hearsay and should not have been relied upon.
- There was no direct evidence proving abetment of suicide or instigation by the accused.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Public Prosecutor contended that:
- The victim was harassed continuously by the accused and had dropped out of school because of him.
- On the date of the incident, he trespassed into her house, outraged her modesty, and issued threats, which cumulatively led to her suicide.
- Ext.P3 was recorded by the police while she was alive and related directly to the cause of her death; hence, it satisfied the requirements of a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
- The evidence of PW1, PW2, and the investigating officer corroborated Ext.P3.
Analysis of the Law
The Court applied the definitions of “criminal trespass” under Section 441 IPC and “house trespass” under Section 442 IPC. It held that:
“Entry into the dwelling house of the victim with intent to commit an offence and without her consent constitutes house trespass.”
With regard to Section 354 IPC, the Court reiterated that outraging the modesty of a woman includes acts that shock a woman’s sense of decency.
For Section 306 IPC, the Court referred to Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618], noting that continued harassment and the resultant mental pressure may constitute instigation.
The Court also cited the Division Bench decision in Ebi @ Philip Ninan v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC 327] where a First Information Statement, made before death and relating to its cause, was treated as a dying declaration.
Precedent Analysis
- Ebi @ Philip Ninan v. State of Kerala, [2024 (3) KHC 327]: Held that a First Information Statement given by the deceased, if related to the cause of death, qualifies as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
- Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, [(2001) 9 SCC 618]: Held that instigation may be inferred from conduct that leaves the victim with no other option but to commit suicide. Mens rea is essential.
These cases were relied upon by the Court to affirm that Ext.P3 could be considered a dying declaration and that the accused’s conduct amounted to abetment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- The accused’s repeated harassment caused the victim to discontinue her studies.
- The intrusion into her home, threats, and physical acts constituted house trespass and outraging of modesty.
- Ext.P3, recorded before death, narrating the incident in detail, was reliable and satisfied the tests of a dying declaration.
- The cumulative impact of the accused’s actions left the victim mentally distressed, leading to her suicide.
Thus, the Court concluded that the prosecution proved all charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The appellant was directed to surrender forthwith, failing which the trial court was instructed to execute the sentence.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the legal acceptability of dying declarations recorded as First Information Statements, provided they relate to the cause of death. It also sends a strong message that harassment leading to psychological trauma may amount to abetment of suicide. The ruling strengthens the jurisprudence on protection of women from persistent harassment and affirms the seriousness with which courts view offences that drive victims to extreme measures.
Judgments Cited and Their Role
- Ebi @ Philip Ninan v. State of Kerala – Accepted FIS as dying declaration under Section 32(1) of Evidence Act.
- Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh – Laid down the elements of “instigation” for abetment of suicide.
