Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, father of the deceased, filed a criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.04.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, in Sessions Case No.89 of 2004. The respondents (original accused) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A, and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased married respondent no.1 and died within six months of marriage due to marital disputes. On the day of the incident, 27.10.2004, at about 1:30 pm, the deceased died in a field where jowar harvesting was taking place. The prosecution relied on three dying declarations of the deceased, which the trial court found inconsistent and unreliable. The trial court also considered defence witnesses and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal. The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in appreciating evidence and gave undue weight to defence witnesses. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction against acquittal, noting that interference is warranted only if the judgment is perverse or based on no evidence. The Court found that the dying declarations were inconsistent regarding the role of each accused and the manner of incident, and the trial court's appreciation of evidence was not perverse. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offences, and the acquittal was well-reasoned. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope - The High Court in revision against acquittal can interfere only if the judgment is perverse, based on no evidence, or suffers from gross miscarriage of justice - The revisional court does not sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence - Held that the impugned judgment was not perverse and did not warrant interference (Paras 1, 10-12). B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Dying Declaration - Appreciation - Dying declarations must be consistent, voluntary, and reliable - Inconsistencies and contradictions in multiple dying declarations render them unreliable - Held that the three dying declarations of the deceased were inconsistent regarding the role of each accused and the manner of incident, hence rightly discarded by the trial court (Paras 5-8). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 498-A, 306 - Dowry Death - Proof - Mere presence of marital disputes and unnatural death within seven years of marriage does not automatically attract presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act - Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment - Held that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offences (Paras 2-4, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, in Sessions Case No.89 of 2004 is perverse and warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the acquittal of the respondents.
Law Points
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction against acquittal
- Appreciation of dying declarations
- Standard of proof in dowry death cases
- Presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act
