In this criminal revision, the father of a deceased woman sought reversal of her acquittal in a murder trial. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting contradictions in witness testimony regarding a suspicious fire.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.420 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
This revision case is against judgment dated 28.08.2006 in Sessions Case No.230 of 2003 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, wherein respondents 2 to 4 herein are acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w 34 IPC.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that A.1 is husband of the deceased, whereas A.2 and A.3 are relatives of A.1 and the deceased died under suspicious circumstances in the police quarters since A.1 is a police constable. It is submitted that since all the neighbours who are from police department have not supported the prosecution case. But, the trial Court has not accepted the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and other supported witnesses at least to the extent of 498-A IPC. He further submitted that there are two dying declarations of the deceased, one is recorded when the husband was present and the other one was recorded at Victoria hospital, Bangalore by Bangalore police where no one were present and the victim can openly speak to the truth. It is submitted that the trial Court without considering
these aspects acquitted respondents 2 to 4 and that the judgment of the trial Court is incorrect and that the matter may be remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration.
On the other hand, learned counsel for R.2 to R.4 submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated evidence on record and there is no evidence attracting ingredients of Section 498-A IPC and since the first dying declaration was made to a Judicial First Class Magistrate, the trial Court accepting it, acquitted the respondents 2 to 4 herein and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.
Now, the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the Court below is legal, proper and correct?
POINT: According to prosecution, on 22.04.2002, at about 6:30 P.M. respondents 2 to 4 herein picked up a quarrel with the deceased, dragged her into the bed room of their quarters and there A.2 caught the deceased, A.3 brought kerosene and A.1 lit the fire and on hearing the cries of the deceased, neighbours rushed to the spot and she was shifted to Government hospital, Hindupur and from there to Victoria hospital, Bangalore and on the basis of statement given to police at Bangalore Crime No.15 of 2002 was registered and investigation revealed that respondents 2 to 4 are liable for punishment for offences
under Sections 498-A, 302 r/w 34 IPC and also Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On these allegations, 20 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked on behalf of prosecution besides 4 material objects. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined, but Exs.D.1 to D.5 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 are marked. On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court Judge found the accused not guilty.
Now aggrieved by the same, de facto complainant ie., father of the deceased preferred the present revision. Out of the 20 witnesses examined PW.1, PW.2, PW.9, PW.13, PW.17 PW.18, PW.19 and PW.20 alone supported the prosecution case.
PWs 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased, PW.9 is an elder for the marriage talks, PW.13 is Medical Officer of Victoria hospital, Bangalore, PW.17 is the ASI of Police, Hindupur I town Police station and PW.18 is the Magistrate of Bangalore, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. PW.19 is the Investigating Officer and PW.20 is the Forensic Science Expert.
PWs 1 and 2 are the only material witnesses and remaining witnesses are Official witnesses. The dying declarations of deceased are marked as Exs.P.7 and P.11. The earliest dying declaration marked as Ex.P.7 is
recorded by Judicial First Class Magistrate of Hindupur. In this, the deceased clearly stated that while she was preparing hot water for making tea accidentally saree caught fire and that was the reason for causing burn injuries. Here, as seen from the investigation, A.1 and A.2 also received burn injuries. PWs 1 and 2 are not the direct witnesses and the neighbours who are examined as PWs 3, 4 and 5 have not supported the prosecution case. According to Advocate for revision petitioner, since PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5 being police personnel residing in the police quarters, they did not speak against A.1 who is a Police Constable but as seen from the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5 and 16, PW.3 is daughter of a police Constable, PW.5 is a wife of a Police Constable, so also PW.16 is wife of a police Constable. Even PW.5 is also wife of a police Constable. Colleagues may not speak against A.1 but not the womenfolk particularly when the deceased victim herself is a woman. Considering these aspects, the learned trial Judge held that prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. As per the Criminal Law, any doubt that arises in the prosecution story, must go in favour of the accused. Here, when the first dying declaration would clearly disclose that the deceased caught fire accidentally and that she received burn injuries in the said incident, and the injuries on the body of A.1 and A.2 would lend support to the statement of the deceased under Ex.P.7 dying
declaration. Therefore, on a consideration of material on record, I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence and that there are no incorrect findings in his judgment on any of material aspects. For these reasons, I am of the view that the revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.
____________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
Dt. 3rd April, 2014 PNV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of respondents in a trial involving offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC.
Whether the deceased's statement about an accidental fire is supported by the injuries sustained by the accused.
Father of the deceased
Respondents 2 to 4
S. Ravi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
