Sensitive issues such as relationship between a husband and his wife which is purely based on trust is affected adversely in cases where trust is broken by any either of them. It is not uncommon to see wives committing suicides where their man is involved with another woman; even the conviction rate for such abetment is quite considerable. Likewise men, who are victims of adultery resort to heinous crimes such as murder.
In one of such many incidents, days after the constitution bench of Supreme Court struck down the adultery law, Delhi High Court on Oct 12 upheld the sentence of life imprisonment to a man accused of killing his wife’s lover.
While relying upon the testimony of two witnesses who deposed before the trial court that the deceased had told them that he had an illicit relationship with the wife of the accused, the High Court satisfied itself for the existence of motive.
Appreciating the evidence in light of section 32 of the Evidence Act, the bench held: “The verbal statement of the deceased… before his death is relevant to the circumstance of the transaction which resulted in his death. Since the death of the deceased has come into question in the present trial, the said statement made by the deceased Yogesh… with regard to his illicit relationship with the wife of …Virender.”
The statement regarding the illicit affair between the deceased and the wife of accused, made by the deceased to both the witnesses is squarely covered by clause (3) of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence make it relevant as those statements would have expose him or would have exposed him to a criminal prosecution.
The high court while upholding the conviction also observed, “The statement of the deceased… that he had an illicit relationship with the wife of Virender would have exposed him to a criminal prosecution under Section 497 IPC. We may observe that Section 497 IPC has been struck down by the Supreme Court now in W.P.(C.) No. Crl.A.1494/2014 Page 26 of 27 194/2017, titled Joseph Shine v. Union of India, vide judgment dated 28.09.2018. However, at the relevant point of time, the said provision was still in force and the deceased Yogesh had no reason to believe that the said provision would, in future, be declared to be unconstitutional.”
—India Legal Bureau