Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 25.3.2003, acquitting four accused persons (Jaideep Namdeo Gorad, Sandeep Namdeo Gorad, Shantabai Namdeo Gorad, and Rohini Sandeep Gorad) of offences under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case involved the homicidal death of Radhabai, wife of accused no.1 Jaideep, who allegedly died after kerosene was poured on her and she was set on fire. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the mother of the deceased (PW2), who claimed an oral dying declaration, and a police officer (PW1) who recorded a written dying declaration in the presence of a doctor (PW4) on 23.2.2002. The deceased was admitted to Jahangir Hospital, Pune on 15.2.2002 and died on 26.2.2002 due to septicemia and shock. The defence contended that the death was accidental, caused by a fallen kerosene lamp while the family was asleep. The trial court accepted the defence version, finding that the prosecution failed to prove homicidal death or involvement of any accused. The High Court, hearing only the State's appeal (as no one appeared for the respondents), reviewed the record and found that the trial court's findings were not perverse. The court noted that the dying declarations were inconsistent and lacked corroboration, and the defence version of accidental fire was plausible. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The High Court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court's appreciation of evidence, if plausible, should not be disturbed. (Paras 1-6) B) Evidence - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Oral dying declaration made to mother and written dying declaration recorded by police officer in presence of doctor were considered. However, the trial court found them unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. (Paras 4-6) C) Criminal Law - Homicidal Death vs. Accidental Death - Burden of Proof - The prosecution failed to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt. The defence version of accidental fire from a kerosene lamp was plausible. (Paras 1-6) D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against Acquittal - The State's appeal was dismissed as the trial court's findings were not perverse and the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 498A, 302 read with 34 IPC was perverse and required interference by the High Court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal of all four accused.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- scope of interference
- dying declaration
- homicidal death
- accidental death
- benefit of doubt
