Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 r/w. 34, 498-A, 304-B r/w. s.34 – Prosecution case that appellant-accused (husband of victimdeceased) poured kerosene on the victim and lit fire and ran away from the spot – Consequent to which, victim sustained grievous burnt injuries and later died in the hospital – Dying declaration of the victim was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate – In dying declaration victim categorically stated that appellant-accused burnt her – Police filed charge sheet against the three accused persons including appellant-accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304-B, 302 r/w. s.34 of IPC and ss.3, 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Trial court acquitted all the accused – However, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal of the appellantaccused and held him guilty – On appeal, held: In the instant case, there was a dying declaration given by the victim which was proved and supported by the independent witnesses i.e. the metropolitan magistrate and the medical officer – But the same was discarded by the trial court on some minor contradictions/omissions – On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, it was found that the approach of the trial court was patently erroneous and the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable – Trial court committed a patent error in discarding the dying declaration and other material evidence – Therefore, the interference by the High Court in the appeal against the acquittal of the appellant was justified – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3, 4 and 6. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The dying declaration involving the appellant came to be established and proved by the prosecution, by examining the doctor as well as the metropolitan magistrate who recorded the dying declaration. Despite the above overwhelming evidence in the form of medical evidence as well as the dying declaration and the deposition of the metropolitan magistrate, the trial Court discarded the same on some minor contradictions/omissions. It also appears from the judgment and order passed by the trial Court that it gave undue importance to the initial statement of the victim while giving the history to the doctor when she was admitted and when she gave the history of accidental burns while cooking in the kitchen. However, the trial Court did not consider her explanation given in the dying declaration. Even considering the surrounding circumstances and the medical evidence and the other evidence, the defence has miserably failed and proved that it was an accidental burns/death. The appellant was last seen in the house and immediately on the occurrence of the incident he ran away. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the approach of the trial Court was patently erroneous and the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. [Para 9][1007-F-H; 1008-A-B]
2. In the light of the above findings, it is required to be considered, whether solely on the ground that the High Court has not examined the reasons on which the order of acquittal was passed and convicted the accused by interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the same is further required to be interfered with by this Court? [Para 10][1008-C]
3. Considering various Supreme Court decisions, it emerges that even in the case where the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal interfered with the order of acquittal without specifically considering the reasons arrived at by the trial court and without specifically observing that the reasons are perverse, this Court can still maintain the order of conviction passed by the High Court, if this Court is satisfied itself that the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably unsustainable and the judgment of the appellate court is free from those infirmities. It also emerges that the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion, however, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal solely on the ground on re-appreciation of the entire evidence that two views are possible. [Para 12][1011-F-H]
4. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court while acquitting the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the approach of the trial court was patently erroneous and the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. This Court finds that it is not a case where two reasonable views on examination of the evidence are possible and so the one which supports the accused should be adopted. The view taken by the trial court can hardly be said to be a view on proper consideration of evidence, much less a reasonable view. The trial court, as observed hereinabove, committed a patent error in discarding the dying declaration and the other material evidence, discussed hereinabove. Therefore, the interference by the High Court in the appeal against the acquittal of the appellant and recording the finding of his conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, on consideration of the evidence, is justified. The judgment under appeal does not warrant any interference. [Para 13][1012-A-C] Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1955 SC 807 ; Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat (1978) 1 SCC
228 : [1978] 2 SCR 471; Sambasivan v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412: [1998] 3 SCR 280 – relied on. Chandu v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 9 SCC 408 ; Surinder Singh v. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 26: [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 401; Devatha Venkataswamy alias Rangaiah v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (2003)
10 SCC 700; Main Pal v. State of Haryana (2004) 10 SCC 692:[2004] 3 SCR 768; Chanakya Dhibar (dead) v. State of W.B. (2004) 12 SCC 398:[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1181; Kalyan Singh v. State of M.P. (2006) 13 SCC 303 : [2006] 9 Suppl.SCR 249; Bannareddy v. State of Karnataka (2018) 5 SCC 790 : [2018] 4 SCR
623 ; Madathil Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2018) 14 SCC 513 ; Mohd. Akhtar @ Kari v. State of Bihar (2019) 2 SCC 513 – inapplicable.
Aher Raja Khima v. The State of Saurashtra [1955] 2 SCR 1285 ; K.Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) 1 SCC 355 : [1979] 2 SCR 265;
K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala
(1999) 3 SCC 309 : [1999] 1 SCR 1222 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.