2021 (3) TMI 1353 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision on appeal involving Sections 498A and 302 of IPC

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to reverse the trial court's acquittal of the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of ... Murder - mental cruelty and there was demand of dowry - offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC - reversal of acquittal and thereby convicting the appellant - HELD THAT:- It is observed, after following the decision of this Court in the case of KULDEEP SINGH VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. [1998 (12) TMI 627 - SUPREME COURT], that if a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. Applying the law laid down by this Court in various decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the findings recorded by the High Court, the High Court has specifically observed and held that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court discarding and/or not believing the dying declaration (Exhibit P5) is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court has given cogent reasons while believing dying declaration (Exhibit P5) and has also considered in detail what is stated in the later dying declaration (Exhibit P5), vis-à-vis, the medical evidence and the injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, as such, the High Court has not committed any error in reappreciating the entire evidence on record and thereafter interfering with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, having found the finding recorded by the learned trial Court perverse. A somewhat similar submission was made before this Court in the case of SANTOSH VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2015 (4) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT]. In the case before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the accused who poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze by matchstick that thereafter they tried to save the deceased by pouring water on her and therefore it was contended on behalf of the accused that by that conduct it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, after pouring kerosene on the deceased and thereafter setting her ablaze, thereafter merely because the accused might have tried to extinguish the fire will not take the case out of the clutches of clause fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC. The act of the accused pouring kerosene on the deceased and thereafter setting her ablaze by matchstick is imminently dangerous which, in all probability, will cause death. Therefore, the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.2. Evaluation of dying declarations (Exhibit P5 and Exhibit D2).3. Jurisdiction and scope of appellate court under Section 378 Cr.P.C.4. Consideration of defense arguments and alternative explanations.5. Applicability of Section 302 IPC in the context of the accused's actions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the High Court's Reversal of the Trial Court's Acquittal:The High Court reversed the trial court’s acquittal of the appellant (original accused no.1) for offences under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC. The trial court had acquitted the accused based on contradictions in two dying declarations and other evidence. The High Court found the trial court's judgment perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, specifically relying on the second dying declaration (Exhibit P5).2. Evaluation of Dying Declarations (Exhibit P5 and Exhibit D2):The prosecution presented two dying declarations: Exhibit P5 and Exhibit D2. The trial court found contradictions between the two, leading to the acquittal. The High Court, however, found Exhibit P5 reliable, noting that it was supported by medical evidence and the circumstances of the injuries. The High Court also considered the explanation in Exhibit P5 that the deceased initially stated it was an accident due to threats from the appellant.3. Jurisdiction and Scope of Appellate Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C.:The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for appellate courts in appeals against acquittals under Section 378 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that interference is warranted only when the trial court's findings are perverse or unsustainable. The High Court was justified in reappreciating the evidence and reversing the acquittal, as it found the trial court's decision to be perverse.4. Consideration of Defense Arguments and Alternative Explanations:The defense argued that the fire was accidental and that the appellant tried to extinguish it, sustaining injuries himself. The High Court dismissed this explanation, noting the absence of burn injuries on the deceased's feet and the lack of a stove at the scene. The High Court found the defense's version implausible and supported by no reliable evidence.5. Applicability of Section 302 IPC in the Context of the Accused's Actions:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's application of Section 302 IPC, noting that the act of pouring kerosene and setting the deceased on fire was imminently dangerous and likely to cause death. The Court dismissed the argument that the appellant's attempt to extinguish the fire mitigated the offense, referencing similar cases where such actions did not reduce the gravity of the crime.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment, affirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to reverse the trial court's acquittal based on a thorough reappreciation of the evidence and proper application of legal principles.