Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.01.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.86 of 1988. The respondent-accused, Vijyaba Natvarsinh Parmar, was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case was that on 23-06-1988, the complainant Prafulaba, daughter-in-law of the accused, was cooking in her house at about 8:00 hours. When she went to the washroom, the accused followed her carrying a tin of 5 litres containing about 2½ litres of kerosene and poured kerosene on her. The complainant shouted for help, but the accused pulled her out of the washroom, took her to the kitchen, and set her on fire with a matchstick. The complainant sustained burns and was taken to the hospital. The complainant alleged that the accused used to taunt her regarding cooking and household work. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding inconsistencies in the dying declarations and lack of corroboration. The High Court, in the appeal, examined the evidence and found that the dying declarations recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the police contained material contradictions regarding the manner of incident and the role of the accused. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution version. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the acquittal was based on a plausible view of the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the trial court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellate court should not substitute its own view merely because a different view is possible. (Paras 1-3) B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Inconsistencies - Multiple dying declarations must be consistent and corroborated. In the present case, the dying declarations recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the police contained material contradictions regarding the manner of incident and the role of the accused. The trial court rightly acquitted the accused giving benefit of doubt. (Paras 4-10) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Dowry Death - The prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution version, and the dying declarations were unreliable. The acquittal was upheld. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside in an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) CrPC.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.01.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.86 of 1988 is confirmed. The accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- Dying declaration
- Corroboration
- Inconsistencies
- Benefit of doubt
