Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in the case of Dand l,akshmi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradeshl held that it would be unsafe to convict any person

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri G.V. Shivaji Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 : Sri Sakinala Ravi Kumar The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT q HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SURETTDER HON'BI,E SRI JI'STICE I{.SARATII CRIMINAL APPEAL No.46 OF 2O16 JIIDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Jusfrce K. Szrend.er) 1. This Criminal Appeal is frled questioning the acquittal of the accused/respondents 2 to 8, who are A1 to A7, vide judgment in S.C.No. 149 of 2OO8 by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga ReddY District.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on O8'03'2007 the marriage of the daughter of P.W. I namely Varala:mi (deceased) was performed with A1. The incident of burning happened on22'07'2OO7 early morning at 4.30 a.m. According to the deceased, A1 poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, for which reason, she sustained burn injuries and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. The Insepctor of PolicelP'W' 11 received information about the burns received by the deceased and asked Waheed Hussain/ASl to record statement of tJ.e deceased' On the basis of the statement recorded by ASI, crime was registered under Section 307 IPC. Requisition was given to the XI Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate and statement of the deceased was recorded by the Magistrate on the same day i.e., on 22.O7.2OO7 at 1O'30 a'm' The deceased died at 3.30 p.m on 23.O7.2OO7. The MRO inquest was called and the inquest proceedings were concluded. Thereafter, body 2 was sent for postmortem examination. On tITe same day i.e.,

23.07.2OO7, A1 was arrested and later A2 to A7 were also arrested on O2.O9.2OO7. The police having concluded investigation, Iiled charge sheet under Section 3O2 IPC against A1 and Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of ttre Dow4r Prohibition Act against A2 to A7.

3. lrarned Sessions Judge framed charges for the said offences and examined P.Ws. 1 to 13, Exs.Pl to P14 and MOs. I and 2 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. During the course of examination of witnesses, Exs.Dl to D8 were brought on record by the accused.

4. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the following grounds: i) P.Ws. 1 to 4 did not speak about the demand of Rs.2O,OOO/ and auto rickshaw by Al at the earliest point of time and it is an improved version during trial. ii) Exs.Dl and D2 which are contradictions marked in the evidence of P.W. I go to show that the marriage of the deceased was performed with Al against her will and deceased was not cooperating with Al to lead conjugal life. P.W.2's evidence ttrat a panchayat was held regarding demand of additional amounts was not stated by any /; 3 witness. None were examined during investigation to say abor.t any panchayat being he1d. iii) The allegation of burning deceased with cigarette butts, as stated by P.Ws.1 to 5 was not convincing. rv) The evidence of P.W.3/brother that he received phone call from the deceased informing that A 1 suspected her frdelity is a material omission. v) The contradictions elicited in Exs.Dl to D4 disclosed that the deceased was not interested to live with A1. Exs.D7 and D8 are the charge sheets filed against P.W.3 by P.W. l3/Inspector of Police' A complaint was liled by A1 against P.W.3 on 22.O7.2OO7. In Exs'D7 and D8, it was mentioned that the deceased caught fire at 4.OO am and was running down the stairs unable to bear the pain' A4 with the help of A2, A3, A4, A5 and A7 put off fire and shifted tJ.e deceased to Gandhi Hospital. The version in Exs.D7 and D8 was contrar5r to what was stat€d in the Court. vi) The scene of offence panchanama does not reveal that there was any ash or burnt marks in the room where the incident had taken place. If the deceased received burn injuries in the room, there wor'rld be pieces of burnt clothes, smelling of kerosene and burnt marks on -7Eii 4 the walls. However, nothing was found. (evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 13 and 14). vii) There are two statements made by the deceased one to ASI, who was not examined, which is Ex.P9 and the other statement is Ex.P7 recorded by the Magistrate/P.W.9. Though she stated in Ex.P7 that she was having disputes with her husband from the marriage and the husband used to drink and beat her in drunken condition, no such allegation was made in the statement under Ex.P9. Further, in Ex.P7, she stated that the husband did not open his door when she i I caught fire. However, the allegation was not made in Ex.P9 which was made to the ASI prior in time to the dying declaration to the Magistrate. The Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in the case of Dand l,akshmi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradeshl held that it would be unsafe to convict any person on the strength of fragile and rickety dying declaration. The said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of the case. viii) Different versions are given in Exs.P7 and P9 statements of the deceased and since no evidence was found in the room where the a,lleged incident has taken place, the case projected by the prosecution becomes doubtful. The Magistrate had used printed proforma for writing down the statement of the deceased. The ASI who recorded t Ata 1999 sc a2ss E 5 statement of the deceased on which basis FIR was recorded, was not examined. ix) When two views are possible, one favourable to the accused has to be taken as observed by tJle Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjiv Kumar y. State of Rrnjabz.

5. karned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that dying declaration can solely form basis for convicting the accused. Minor discrepancies occur in every case and such minor discrepancies cannot form basis to acquit the accused. l,earned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamalavrra and another v. State of Karaataka s . In the said case, the Hon'ble Surpeme Court found that dying declaration could be relied on to convict the accused. l,eamed counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chikkarangaiah and others v. State of Karnatakel.

6. In Rawi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and anothers, 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 ' zoro 1:1 scc 1c.t.; :lo ' 120091 t3 Supreme court Cases 614 '12OOs; tz Suprerne Court Cas6 497 '120221 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 j I i I I i 6 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.

7. ln Ghureg La.l o. S;to:te of Uttar Pradeslf 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 acqtrittal, held at para 7O, as follows: "70. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and other appellate C,ourts shntld follow the uell-settled principles crystallized bg number of Judgments if it b going to ouerntle or otheru.tise disturb tle trial aurt's aquittal:

1. The appellate court maA only ouemtle or othenube disturb the trial @urt's aquittal if it has "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which tlrc oppellote court utould. haue "uery substantial and cornpelling rea-sons" to disurd the trial aurt's d.ecision. 'Very substantial and compeLLing reasor:s" exist tuh.en: I The tnd court's conclusion uith regord to the fads is palpablg ii) The tial court's decision uas based on an erroneous vieut of lau; iii) The tial court's judgment i.s LikelA to result in "graue mi-surriage of lDfoftg: justie"; iu) The entire approach of the tial cnurt in dealing uith the euidene u) The tial court's judgment u)o.s manifestly unjust and uas patentlg illegal; unreasonable; vi) The triat court ho-s tgnored the euidence or misrea.d. the moterial euid.ence or hos ignored material doalments like dging declaratior*/ report of tle baliistic expert, etc. uii)This lis,t is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. The appellate cou.rt must alusags giue proper ueight and ansideration o the findings of the tial court. If tuo reasonable uieus can be reached one that lead.s to aquitta\ the other to @nuiction _tle High Courts/ appellate courts must tule in fauour of the aeused-" '(2008) 10 srp."-" court cases 450 a I 7 In the statement recorded by the ASI at 9'OO a'm on 22 'O7 '2OO7 ' 8. the deceased stated that she called her brother/P'W'3 at 1O'OO p'm in the night, for which reason, Al por:red kerosene on her at 4'30 a'm and lit her on frre. The mother-in-law and sister-in-1aw' brother-in- law, took her to the hospital after putting off the flames' In the statement recorded at 1O'30 a'm' before the M'gistrate' she stated that A1 doubted the deceased whenever she talked with A1's brothers' He poured kerosene on her and lit her on frre' Al used to come home drunk, beat her and they were having separate rooms' When the deceasedshoutedforhelp,husbanddidnotopenthedoor. \ I I g. Exs.Dl and D2 are statements made by P'W'l' The marriage of deceased was against her will as accepted by P'W'1' The said aspect is substantiated by the statement of the deceased before thg Ivla gr strate that she was staying in a separate room from her husband' There is no reason why the deceased and A1' who were married only four months back would stay seParately in two different rooms in the I house of accused.

10. The other reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge regarding the omissions of alleged demand of Rs.2O,O0o /- acr'd auto rickshaw and the allegation of beating was an improvement made during trial' are apparent from the record and proved through the evidence of the investigating ofhcer. No evidence was found at the scene of offence 8 $ where the deceased allegedly caught frre. The statements of P.Ws. 1 to 5 in the Court and the statement made by the deceased in her two statements Exs.P7 and P9 totally vary and cannot be relied upon to convict the accused, as rightly found by the learned Sessions Judge. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based on record, probable and reasonable. Interference is not warranted in cases where the findings are based on record. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.

11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ,TTRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR i ECTION OFFICER To, l.ThelllAdditionalDistrictandSessionsJudgeIFTC).RR.District' 2. The Station House Ofiicer]'Xr.n",gra" Polide Statioh. Ranga Reddy District-. 5. +ffift;i;'i[" Froi," p.ilEtorl H'gn court for the state of relangana at a. oir;-cdto 'Sri o.v. Shivali Advocate [oPUC] .- d. O;; CC io Sti Sakinala Rivr Kumar' Advocate [oPUCl 6. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUT] Njb/gh @i I I I i i I I ;l I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:0910112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.46 of 2016 ( ,\q :) i,) 1 1r* SdAf€ o^ t 2 7 tEB 2[25 l t gO I -.D f Spl.C 't: DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL l