Brief Facts
- The State of Rajasthan filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 04.01.2001 whereby the respondents Dharamraj (husband of the deceased) and Satyanarain (brother-in-law) were acquitted of charges under Section 302 IPC. The complainant Ranglal also filed a criminal revision petition challenging the acquittal.
- The prosecution case was that the deceased Amita sustained burn injuries on the night of 06.09.1999 at around 3:00 a.m. while sleeping in the courtyard of her sister Pushpa’s house. It was alleged in her statement recorded by the SDM that her husband Dharamraj poured kerosene from a container and Satyanarain lit fire with a matchstick. She was taken to YN Hospital, Kishangarh, referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, and succumbed to injuries on 11.09.1999.
- During trial, out of seven named accused, five were discharged. The trial court acquitted the remaining two respondents holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues
- Whether the dying declaration of the deceased, read with oral testimony, was reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC?
- Whether the judgment of acquittal suffered from perversity, misreading, or omission of material evidence warranting interference in appeal and revision?
Held
- The Division Bench while examining the scope of appellate and revisional interference against an order of acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C., applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149, held that interference is permissible only where the acquittal is perverse, based on misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible. Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed. The findings of the Court are as under:
- On facts, the Court found serious infirmities in the prosecution case: most alleged eye-witnesses either turned hostile or failed to support the prosecution; testimony of the interested witness was unreliable and contradictory; the dying declaration, recorded without question-answer format and in absence of corroboration, could not form the sole basis of conviction; medical and documentary evidence such as bed-head tickets were withheld; surrounding circumstances and timelines were inconsistent; and recoveries did not connect the accused with the offence. The discharge of co-accused was never challenged. Holding that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was sound and its view a plausible one, the Court found no perversity or legal error warranting interference and accordingly dismissed the appeal and revision.
Relevant Para No.
- 6 to 15