Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.02.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.383/1993. The trial court had acquitted four accused persons, namely Promodbhai Jesingbhai Shah and others, who were charged under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and alternatively Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of Hemlataben, the widow of Indravardhansingh Jaisingh Shah. The case of the prosecution was that on 08.10.1991 at about 16:30 hours, at Ahmedabad, Usmanpura, Vikramnagar Society, Bunglow No.3/B, due to a property dispute and family quarrels, all the accused together with an intention to cause her death, voluntarily caused grievous hurt, poured groundnut oil on her, and set her on fire with a matchstick, resulting in her death. The trial court, after examining the evidence, found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. The State, being aggrieved, preferred the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent no.2 Manoj Fakirchand Shah died on 05.10.2016, and his name was deleted from the cause title as abated. The High Court, after hearing the learned APP Mr. Rohan H. Rawal and perusing the record, observed that the trial court had given cogent reasons for acquittal. The dying declaration of the deceased was not recorded by a Magistrate and was not reliable. The witnesses turned hostile and there were material inconsistencies in their testimonies. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and there was no ground to interfere with the acquittal. The appeal was dismissed and the order of acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378 Cr.P.C. - Scope of interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 1-12) B) Indian Penal Code - Murder - Sections 302, 34, 114 IPC - Dying declaration - Credibility - The dying declaration of the deceased was not reliable as it was not recorded by a Magistrate and there were inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses regarding the presence of the accused and the manner of incident. (Paras 3-10) C) Evidence Act - Dying declaration - Admissibility - The dying declaration must be free from tutoring and must be consistent with other evidence. In this case, the dying declaration was not corroborated by medical evidence and the witnesses turned hostile. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order of acquittal was perverse or based on misappreciation of evidence, warranting interference by the High Court in an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.383/1993 dated 06.02.1998 is confirmed. The name of respondent no.2 is deleted from the cause title as abated.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 Cr.P.C.
- Scope of interference in acquittal appeals
- Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Credibility of witnesses
- Inconsistencies in testimony
- Benefit of doubt
