Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the father of the deceased Vandana @ Seema, filed a criminal revision application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.3.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2002. The Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused persons (respondent Nos. 2 to 4) of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B, and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The petitioner contended that the Sessions Judge ignored the basic principles of law regarding Sections 498A and 304-B IPC, lost sight of the provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and erroneously accepted the defence version and an alleged dying declaration that was not proved in evidence. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate court. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. The dying declaration was not proved in accordance with law. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act was not attracted. The court concluded that the judgment of acquittal was not perverse and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act - The prosecution must first establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. In the absence of such evidence, the presumption under Section 113-B cannot be invoked. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband or Relatives - Section 498A IPC - The prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Mere general allegations without specific instances of cruelty or demand of dowry are insufficient to convict. (Paras 1-10)
C) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - The dying declaration must be proved in accordance with law. If the dying declaration is not recorded by a Magistrate or in the presence of a doctor and there are inconsistencies, it cannot be relied upon. (Paras 1-10)
D) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 401 Cr.P.C. - The revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate court. It can only interfere if the judgment is perverse, illegal, or improper. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge is perverse and liable to be set aside in revision?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113-A of Evidence Act
- 1872
- Offence under Section 304-B IPC
- Offence under Section 498A IPC
- Dying declaration
- Appreciation of evidence in acquittal appeal
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (08) 37
Criminal Revision Application No. 267 of 2004
Ms. Aummaheshwari S. Jadhav h/f Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar for petitioner, Mrs. Geeta L. Deshpande, A.P.P. for respondent No.1, Mr. S.R. Bagal h/f Mr. B.N. Gadegaonkar for respondent Nos. 2 and 4
Vasant s/o Nagnath Amilkantwar
The State of Maharashtra, Santosh s/o Laxmanrao Wattamwar, Laxman s/o Digambarrao Wattamwar (died), Sow. Harshbala w/o Laxman Wattamwar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against acquittal in a dowry death case.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner, father of the deceased, sought to set aside the acquittal of the accused and convict them under Sections 498A, 304-B, 306 r.w. 34 IPC.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that the Sessions Judge ignored basic principles of law regarding Sections 498A and 304-B IPC, lost sight of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, and accepted an unproved dying declaration.
Previous Decisions
The Sessions Judge, Nanded acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 498A, 304-B, 306 r.w. 34 IPC on 23.3.2004.
Issues
Whether the judgment of acquittal is perverse and liable to be set aside?
Whether the prosecution proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death?
Whether the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act was attracted?
Whether the dying declaration was proved in accordance with law?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge ignored basic principles of law regarding Sections 498A and 304-B IPC and gave importance to surmises and conjectures.
Petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge lost sight of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act.
Petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge accepted the defence version and an alleged dying declaration that was not proved in evidence.
Respondents argued that the acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and the revision should be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate court. The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. The dying declaration was not proved in accordance with law. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act was not attracted, and the judgment of acquittal was not perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
The original informant filed present criminal revision application under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. thereby challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.3.2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2002 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded.
The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in his judgment dated 23.3.2004 found that the prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against accused persons and accordingly said three accused persons were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B, 306 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a criminal revision application under Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.3.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2002. Rule was issued on 14.7.2006. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the revision on 5.8.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 401
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 498A, 304-B, 306, 34
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 113-A
