Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Dagadusing Vitthalsing Pardeshi, is the father of the deceased Seema, who married respondent No. 1, Manojsing Babusing Dixit, on 21.02.2000. Shortly thereafter, on 23.03.2000, Seema succumbed to burn injuries sustained in the house of the accused persons. She suffered 81% burn injuries. The police recorded her statement in the hospital, which was treated as the FIR, and the Special Executive Magistrate recorded her dying declaration on the same day. In these statements, she implicated the accused persons. Consequently, FIR No. 27/2000 was lodged at Parbhani Police Station initially under Sections 307, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and after her death, Section 302 IPC was added. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial court framed charges against the accused, and the prosecution examined witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, by judgment dated 26.07.2004, acquitted all accused persons of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the applicant (father of the deceased) filed the present criminal revision application before the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the two dying declarations, and found them to be inconsistent. The first dying declaration recorded by the police officer did not mention any specific role of the accused, while the second dying declaration recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate implicated them. The trial court had given the benefit of doubt to the accused. The High Court held that the acquittal was not perverse or erroneous, and the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Inconsistent Dying Declarations - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 498-A, 34 - The deceased sustained 81% burn injuries and made two dying declarations - one to the police officer and another to the Special Executive Magistrate - which were contradictory regarding the cause of the fire. The trial court acquitted the accused giving benefit of doubt. The High Court held that the acquittal was not perverse as the dying declarations were inconsistent and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-16) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 397 - The High Court in revision against acquittal can interfere only if the judgment is perverse or erroneous. The court found no such perversity and dismissed the revision. (Paras 1-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused persons by the trial court was perverse or erroneous, warranting interference in revision.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the acquittal of the accused persons.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- Acquittal
- Inconsistent dying declarations
- Benefit of doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 498-A IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
