HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 42 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 15.11.2019 passed in S.C.No.343 of 2015 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the wife of A1 and the A2 is the mother of the A1. On 24.03.2011, the marriage between the A1 and the deceased was performed and it was a love marriage. During their matrimonial life, they were blessed with one son. After some time of marital life, the A1 and A2 harassed the deceased to get Rs.10.00 lakhs towards additional dowry. Panchayat was also held on 31.08.2014 and after panchayath, the deceased again joined A1 but the accused continued their harassment. On 09.09.2014, the deceased committed suicide by setting fire to herself by pouring kerosene as she was vexed with the attitude of the accused.
3. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked.
2
4. Learned Sessions Judge found that no case was made out against the accused and recorded acquittal on the following grounds:
i) that P.W.9 did not obtain any certificate from the Duty Doctor about the mental condition of the deceased before recording the statement. After recording the statement, P.W.9 took the certificate of Doctor that patient was in conscious and coherent. P.W.9 admits that there is no endorsement on Ex.P4 from the Duty Doctor to ascertain that the patient was coherent and fit state of mind before recording statement. There is no certification by the Duty Doctor that patient is mentally fit in state to record the statement. In such circumstances, the evidence adduced by P.W.9 could not help the prosecution case.
ii) The evidence adduced by the investigating officer, P.W.11 would disclose that the material witnesses do not disclose any specific instances of harassment nor the circumstances, ultimately which lead to the death of the deceased to prove the essential ingredients Under Section 304-B of IPC. Therefore, considering the overall evidence, it is to be held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge against the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 304-B of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
3
5. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
6. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";1
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 4
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii)This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
7. Learned Sessions Judge found that the statements made by the witnesses were vague and without any specific instances. Further, the dying declaration which was recorded did not have the endorsement of the Duty Doctor that the deceased was in fit state of mind. The injuries received were 90%. In view of the above discussion, I do not see any reason to reverse the judgment of acquittal, since the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are probable and reasonable. Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.09.2023.
kvs 5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2021 Date: 20.09.2023 kvs