2019 (4) TMI 2024 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - demand of Dowry - High Court has not examined the reasons on which the order of acquittal was passed - Sections 498A 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 - HELD THAT - The High Court has not committed any error in holding the Appellant - original Accused No. 1 guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case there is a dying declaration given by the deceased which has been proved and supported by the independent witnesses metropolitan magistrate (PW28) it has been established and proved by examining the medical officer and even the medical officer certified that the patient was conscious and coherent and fit state of mind to give the statement. 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 record 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 learned trial Court discarded the same on some minor contradictions/omissions - The Appellant - original Accused No. 1 was last seen in the house and immediately on the occurrence of the incident he ran away. Thus it is opined that the approach of the trial Court was patently erroneous and the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. 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 learned trial Court the same is further required to be interfered with by this Court? - HELD THAT - An identical question came to be considered before this Court in the case of UMEDBHAI JADAVBHAI VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT 1977 (12) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT . In the case before this Court the High Court interfered with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record. However the High Court while reversing the acquittal did not consider the reasons given by the learned trial Court while acquitting the Accused. Confirming the judgment of the High Court this Court observed and held that the High Court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. This Rule will not be applicable in the present case where the Sessions Judge has made an absolutely wrong assumption of a very material and clinching aspect in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The approach of the trial court was patently erroneous and the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable - 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 Indian Penal Code on consideration of the evidence is justified. The judgment under appeal does not warrant any interference. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.
2. Evaluation of evidence, including the dying declaration.
3. Applicability of legal principles regarding appeals against acquittals.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Reversal of the Trial Court's Acquittal:

The appellant challenged the High Court's decision to overturn the trial court's acquittal, arguing that the High Court failed to consider the reasons behind the trial court's decision. The appellant's counsel emphasized that the High Court should have analyzed the trial court's findings before reversing the acquittal. The Supreme Court noted that while the High Court can re-appreciate evidence, it must consider the trial court's reasons for acquittal. Despite this, the Supreme Court found that the High Court was justified in its decision as the trial court's conclusions were patently erroneous and unsustainable.

2. Evaluation of Evidence, Including the Dying Declaration:

The prosecution's case was built on the dying declaration of the deceased, which was recorded by a Metropolitan Magistrate and supported by medical evidence. The dying declaration implicated the appellant in pouring kerosene on the deceased and setting her on fire. The trial court had discarded this declaration due to minor contradictions and initial statements by the deceased suggesting accidental burns. However, the High Court found the dying declaration credible and supported by independent witnesses and medical certification. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, emphasizing the reliability of the dying declaration and the corroborative evidence.

3. Applicability of Legal Principles Regarding Appeals Against Acquittals:

The appellant's counsel cited several Supreme Court decisions to argue that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be adopted. The Supreme Court acknowledged these principles but found them inapplicable in this case. The Court reiterated that while the High Court can re-appreciate evidence, it must ensure the trial court's conclusions are not perverse or unsustainable. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's interference was justified as the trial court's approach was patently erroneous.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to convict the appellant. The Court found that the trial court's acquittal was based on an erroneous and unsustainable evaluation of evidence, particularly the dying declaration. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's re-appreciation of evidence and subsequent conviction were justified and did not warrant interference.