Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Mohan Raghunath Gavade (A-1) and Raghunath Dnyanu Gavade (A-2) for offences under Sections 302 and 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased, Vijaya Mohan Gavade, suffered burn injuries on 23 September 1998 and died on 24 September 1998. The prosecution alleged that A-1, the husband, poured kerosene on her saree, which accidentally caught fire from a hearth, and that A-2, the father-in-law, instigated the act. The trial court acquitted both accused, finding the dying declarations inconsistent and unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence, including two dying declarations: one recorded by PW-2 (Exh.22) and another by a doctor (Exh.24). The declarations differed on key aspects, such as whether A-1 poured kerosene or whether the fire was accidental. The medical evidence (PW-9) suggested the burns were accidental. The High Court held that the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse, and therefore the acquittal was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistency - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 498A r/w 34 - The deceased made two dying declarations: one to the police (Exh.22) and another to the doctor (Exh.24). The declarations were inconsistent regarding the role of the accused and the manner of the incident. The trial court found the declarations unreliable and acquitted the accused. The High Court held that the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse, and therefore the acquittal was upheld. (Paras 7-12) B) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Interference - Perversity - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 378 - The High Court's power to interfere with an acquittal is limited to cases where the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable. In the present case, the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible, and the High Court found no reason to interfere. (Paras 13-15) C) Criminal Law - Homicide - Proof - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The prosecution failed to prove that the death was homicidal. The medical evidence (PW-9) indicated that the burns were accidental and not homicidal. The dying declarations did not clearly implicate the accused in causing the fire. Hence, the charge of murder was not proved. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of respondents upheld.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Acquittal cannot be interfered with unless perverse
- Benefit of doubt to accused
- Burden of proof on prosecution
