An FIR is a fundamental aspect of criminal law, marking the commencement of an investigation into a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court of India, in Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. (2025) examined the legal principles governing the abetment of suicide, the evidentiary value of First Information Reports (FIRs), and the limitations of presumptions under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
This case involved the acquittal of the accused by the High Court, which had overturned the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, affirmed the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the absence of cogent evidence to establish abetment of suicide.
Presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 117 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), provides a presumption of abetment in cases where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage due to alleged cruelty by her husband or in-laws.
In Ram Pyarey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015, the Supreme Court clarified that:
Under Section 113A, the Court may presume but is not bound to conclude that the accused abetted the suicide. Mere cruelty or harassment is insufficient; there must be cogent evidence indicating the accused’s direct role in instigating or aiding the suicide. The presumption under Section 113A does not automatically shift the burden of proof to the accused; the prosecution must first establish prima facie evidence of harassment.
Applying this reasoning, the Court in Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. (2025). found that no credible evidence existed to establish abetment, thereby justifying the High Court’s acquittal.
Can an FIR Be Used as Substantive Evidence?
In Damodar Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 757, the Supreme Court ruled that an FIR can be used as substantive evidence if the informant has died, but only if:
The FIR relates to the cause of the informant’s death orThe FIR falls under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, treating it as a dying declaration.
In Munna Raja v. State of M.P., AIR 1976 SC 2199, the Court observed that an FIR could be treated as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act if the informant later succumbs to injuries caused by the accused.
Key Findings of the Supreme Court in Lalita v. Vishwanath Case
1. No Sufficient Evidence for Abetment of Suicide
Mere harassment or cruelty does not automatically constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC.Clear proof of instigation, aiding, or conspiracy is essential.The court cited Ram Pyarey v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015), highlighting that Section 113A of the Evidence Act provides a discretionary presumption, unlike Section 113B.
2. Differentiating Cruelty from Abetment
Pressure to transfer land ownership does not establish abetment.In the absence of direct provocation or instigation, the accused cannot be held liable for the suicide.
3. Limited Evidentiary Value of FIR When Informant is Deceased
FIR cannot serve as substantive evidence unless it qualifies under Section 32 of the Evidence Act (dying declaration) (Section 26 of Bharatiya Sakshya AdhiniyamIn this case, since the father died of unrelated causes, the FIR did not qualify as a dying declaration The Investigating Officer may verify the registration of the FIR but cannot attest to its contents. Since he was not a direct witness to the incident, the FIR’s contents cannot be proven through his testimony.Court relied on Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab, [(1997) 11 SCC 215] and Hazarilal v. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 390 for clarification. Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) – FIR statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence if the informant is unavailable.Hazarilal v. State (Delhi Administration) (1980) – Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC during the investigation are inadmissible unless tested by cross-examination.
4. Emphasis on Procedural Fairness
Lower courts were criticized for procedural lapses in evidence admission.Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC (Section 180 of BNSS) are inadmissible unless tested through cross-examination.
5. Interpretation of Section 113A of the Evidence Act (Section 117 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam)
Courts must first establish cruelty or harassment before presuming abetment.Individual sensitivities cannot replace legal proof of abetment.Court noted that the deceased’s hypersensitivity to personal issues alone could not justify a presumption of abetment.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the death of Dev Kanya, who had been married to the first respondent, Vishwanath, for one and a half years before her death. According to the prosecution, Dev Kanya died by suicide due to incessant harassment from her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and her husband’s first wife. Her father filed an FIR, alleging offences under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
During the investigation, the police recorded witness statements and collected documentary evidence, including a post-mortem report indicating death by drowning. The Trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000. However, the High Court overturned this conviction, acquitting all the accused on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Dissatisfied with this decision, the mother of the deceased filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Although the deceased’s father lodged the FIR, he passed away before the trial began. Consequently, the mother pursued the appeal, challenging the High Court’s acquittal of the accused.
Impact of the Judgment
Strict Standard for Abetment of Suicide – Mere allegations of cruelty are insufficient; there must be direct evidence of instigation or aiding under Section 306 IPC.Limited Application of Section 113A of the Evidence Act – Presumption of abetment does not automatically apply unless there is credible evidence linking harassment to suicide.FIR Not Substantive Evidence – An FIR cannot be used as primary evidence unless it qualifies as a dying declaration (Section 32 of the Evidence Act).Investigating Officer’s Role Limited in Proving FIR – The officer can verify the FIR’s existence but cannot testify to its contents if the informant has passed away.Mental State of Deceased Considered – Personal distress or hypersensitivity does not necessarily imply abetment by the accused.Acquittal Upheld Due to Lack of Evidence – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, reaffirming that convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.Precedent for Future Cases – Strengthens judicial scrutiny in the abetment of suicide cases, preventing misuse of Sections 306 (Section 108, BNS) and 498A IPC (Section 85, BNS) in matrimonial disputes.
Conclusion
This judgment sets a precedent for cases involving allegations of abetment of suicide and will guide lower courts in correctly applying evidentiary rules. It also reinforces the principle that criminal convictions must be based on concrete proof rather than assumptions or subjective inferences. Ultimately, the ruling ensures that justice is administered fairly while upholding the rights of both the accused and the victims’ families.
The Court also clarified that the FIR, lodged by the deceased’s father before his death, could not be treated as substantive evidence in the absence of corroboration. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
