Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Ap., Rep By Its P.P vs Jaladanki Sarada And Anothers on 4 September, 2020
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy, Ninala Jayasurya
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.705 of 2015
JUDGMENT :(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the Calendar and Judgment, dated 18.03.2013, in Sessions Case No.323 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole, wherein the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 302 of Indian Penal Code (For short 'I.P.C.') and Section 498-A of I.P.C., respectively.
For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are referred to as arrayed before the Sessions Court.
The facts as culled out from the material on record, in brief, may be narrated for better appreciation of the case:
One Smt.Jaladanki Sandhya Rani is the second daughter of Kolliparthi Subbaravamma-P.W.1 and Kolliparthi Nageswara Rao (L.W.1).
The said Jaladanki Sandhya Rani (victim/deceased) studied M.A., and fell in love with Jaladanki Suresh Babu/accused No.2 and their marriage took place in the year 2007. The marriage of Jaladanki Sandhya Rani and Suresh Babu/accused No.2 was performed without the knowledge of her parents, but they accepted the same and again performed marriage, since the accused No.2 belong to the same community. Sandhya Rani was a school teacher and accused No.2 was an auto driver. After the marriage, Sandhya Rani and accused No.2 lived together in Gopalanagar, Ongole, 2 they were blessed with one son and the boy was aged about four years.
Initially Jaladanki Sandhya Rani and the accused were living happily but subsequently disputes arose between mother-in-law of Sandhya Rani i.e., accused No.1 and Sandhya Rani in connection with domestic work.
Sandhya Rani, accused Nos.1 and 2 shifted their family to Marlapadu village, seven months prior to the incident and lived together in the house of one old person/P.W.3 on free of rent, but used to provide meal to him.
After they shifted to Marlapadu village, accused No.1 started a Hotel and used to quarrel with Sandhya Rani on the pretext that she failed to attend work in the hotel and that accused No.1 cannot maintain them with the income of accused No.1. Sandhya Rani discontinued her job after she shifted to Marlapadu village as she was not doing well after giving birth to her child. One month 10 days prior to the incident, accused No.2 dropped Sandhya Rani at her paternal house due to disputes between Sandhya Rani and accused No.1. Sandhya Rani stayed for one week at her mother's house and thereafter she expressed her desire to go back to her husband's house and P.W.1 along with Grandhi Phani (L.W.4) and Galli Subbarao dropped Sandhya Rani at her in-law's house and requested the accused not to quarrel with her and to inform them in case, if any problem arises between Sandhya Rani and the accused. Subsequently, accused No.2 and Sandhya Rani came to the house of P.W.1 and invited her to attend birthday function of their son on 11th December. P.W.1 along with her grandson went to the house of her daughter/Sandhya Rani on 11th December and stayed there till the next morning. During her stay, P.W.1 observed that Sandhya Rani was dull and on her enquiry, Sandhya Rani informed that she was unable to know what was happening in her house, as she found that gas was released in their house and gas pipe was 3 removed and there was leaking of gas when she went for preparation of coffee in the early hours. P.W.1 enquired accused No.1 about the said incident, for which she did not disclose the reason why the gas pipe was removed. Later, the birthday function of the son of Sandhya Rani was performed and next day morning P.W.1 returned to her house in the auto of accused No.2. Accused No.2 dropped P.W.1 at her house at about 11-00 a.m., and thereafter at about 12-00 or 12-15 p.m., accused No.2 telephoned Bellamkonda Sreedevi-P.W.2 - eldest daughter of P.W.1 and informed that Sandhya Rani poured kerosene on herself and he is taking the deceased to hospital and asked her to come immediately. P.W.1 along with her elder daughter P.W.2 rushed to Government Hospital, Ongole and found Police, Judge or Lawyer were present and recording statement of the injured/victim - Sandhya Rani. On seeing them, Sandhya Rani identified and called P.W.2 as 'Akka Akka' and informed that accused No.1 poured kerosene on her and lit fire with a match stick and kept the match box in her hand.
On receipt of hospital intimation-Ex.P5, the Head Constable/P.W.8 went to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured/victim Sandhya Rani under Ex.P6 in the presence of Dr.M.Ramachandra Rao/P.W.11. Thereafter, P.W.10 - the learned II-Addl.
Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, on receipt of requisition Ex.P.10 from the duty doctor/P.W.11, recorded the statement of Sandhya Rani-
Ex.P.11. After some time, the said Sandya Rani succumbed to burn injuries. On the basis of the information given by P.W.8, the crime was registered by P.W.9-S.I. of Police, vide Ex.P.8-F.I.R. under Sections 498-A and 307 of I.P.C., against the accused. Thereafter, the S.I. of police, 4 altered the Section of law from Sections 498-A, 307 IPC to Sections 498-A, 302 of I.P.C., against accused No.1 in view of the death of the said Sandhya Rani. The Sub-Inspector of Police handed over the file for investigation to the Inspector of police after alteration of Section of law.
P.W.12/Inspector of police took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and after securing the mediators P.W.5 and L.W.12-Burra Subbarao, examined the scene of offence in their presence on 13.12.2010 and prepared scene observation report-Ex.P2 and seized a kerosene tin containing kerosene-M.O.1, match box-M.O.2, partly burnt cloth pieces- M.O.3, one half burnt gunny bag-M.O.4, remaining cloth pieces after burnt- M.O.5, one half burnt plastic bag-M.O.6 and remaining burnt cloth pieces- M.O.7 and obtained signatures of mediators on the said report. He got photographed the scene of offence under cover of Ex.P1. Ex.P12 is the C.D. relating to Ex.P1. He got the rough sketch of scene of offence prepared under Ex.P13. Thereafter, Tahsildar/P.W.6 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and recorded the statements of L.W.1/Kolliparthi Nageswara Rao, P.W.1, P.W.2, L.W.4/Grandhi Phani, L.W.5/Konamsetty Lakshmikantham and sent the dead body for post- mortem examination. P.W.7 conducted post-mortem examination and issued Ex.P.4-Postmortem Certificate. Thereafter, P.W.12 - Inspector of Police arrested accused No.2 and since accused No.1 was admitted in RIMS hospital as she sustained burn injuries, arrested her after discharge and produced her before the Magistrate for judicial custody and filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole.
5
In turn, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., as the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
The District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam, registered the same and numbered as Sessions Case No.323 of 2011 and after securing the presence of accused and upon hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, framed charges against the accused, read over and explained the same to them in telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked on behalf of the prosecution, and Ex.D1 was marked for defence and Ex.X1 by the Court and Material Objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 7.
After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material that appeared against them, they denied the same and did not adduce any oral evidence.
After conducting full-fledged trial, on consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused under Section 235 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (For short 'Cr.P.C.') of the alleged offences by recording a finding that they were found not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge inter alia held that the prosecution side did not place sufficient evidence or sufficient incident to show the particulars of harassment caused to Sandhya Rani or meted out by her in the hands of accused and that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused 6 beyond all reasonable doubts in respect of charges framed against respondent/ accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of I.P.C., and against respondent/accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C.
Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, the present appeal has been filed by the State on different grounds. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor-Mr. Dushyanth Reddy while reiterating the grounds raised in the appeal contended that the judgment of the Sessions Court is based on surmises and conjecturers, perverse and not sustainable in law. He submitted that the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in as much as two dying declarations supporting the case of the prosecution have not been appreciated in the correct perspective and the Sessions Court's finding that the accused are not guilty of the alleged offences is wholly unsustainable. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor while placing much emphasis on the dying declarations of Sandhya Rani contended that the said declarations are sufficient to fix culpability against accused No.1. He submits that in the light of the ample material available on record, the Sessions Court is not justified in acquitting the accused, more particularly when the statements in the dying declarations of Sandhya Rani are consistent and specifically points towards the commission of offence by the accused No.1 in categorical terms. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment of the Sessions Court is contrary to well settled principles of law and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in the light of the evidence on record, more particularly the dying declarations of Sandhya Rani, the Sessions Court 7 should have held that the accused are guilty of the offences levelled against them and convicted them for causing death of Sandhya Rani.
The learned Legal Aid counsel Smt.Ammaji Nettem, Advocate, appearing for the respondents/accused while supporting the Judgment of the Sessions Court, submitted that the findings of the learned Sessions Court are valid and based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record and that the judgment does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that there are discrepancies in the dying declarations of Sandhya Rani and the statements are not corroborated by any independent witnesses and in such circumstances, placing reliance on the statements to rope the respondents/accused into the alleged offences against them would not be justifiable. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2019(2) ALT 249 (Crl.), AIR 1993 SC 374, 2011(1) SCC 641, 2018 ALT (Crl.) 210, 2017(1) ALD (Crl.) 749, 2016(2) ALD 212 S.C.(Crl.). The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to adhere to the procedure contemplated under Rule 33(2) of the Criminal Rules of Practice while recording dying declaration of Sandhya Rani and as such the same has no sanctity in law and will not have any evidentiary value. In view of the suspicious circumstances as expressed by the Sessions Court, the prosecution has to prove its case on the basis of other corroborative evidence which is lacking and that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. She further submitted that when two views are possible, benefit should be given to the accused. The learned counsel while resting her arguments, submitted that 8 there are no grounds for interfering with the well considered judgment of the Sessions Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
On examination of the rival contentions, the points that arises for consideration by this Court is:
1. Whether the accused Nos.1 and 2 are guilty of the offences charged against them and conviction can be recorded on the basis of Dying Declarations? If not, are they entitled for acquittal on the ground that the Dying Declarations are lacking in credibility?
2. When two views are possible, whether the accused are liable to be convicted on the basis of evidence pointing to the guilt? If not, are they entitled to acquittal on the basis of evidence pointing towards their innocence?
Before deciding the points framed by this Court for determination, it is apposite to advert to the law laid down by the Apex Court as to the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka1, wherein the Apex Court laid down five guidelines for deciding an appeal against acquittal. They are as follows:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an 1 (2007) 4 SCC 415 9 appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
In Dwaraka Dass & Ors v. State of Haryana2 the Apex Court in Para No.2 held as follows:
"While there cannot be any denial of the factum that the power and authority to appraise the evidence in an appeal, either against acquittal or conviction stands out to be very comprehensive and wide, but if two views are reasonably possible, on the state of evidence: one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then and in that event, the 2 (2003) 1 SCC 204 10 High Court would not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal, merely because it feels that it, sitting as a trial court, would have taken the other view. While reappreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice."
In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors3, the Apex Court in para No.8 held that:
"There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent."
Those principles were reiterated in the later judgment of Apex Court in Nallabothu Ramu alias Seetharamaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh4. This Court, therefore, would proceed to decide the points framed for consideration, keeping the above principles in mind. 3 (2004) 9 SCC 186 4 (2014) 12 SCC 261 11 As it is a case of acquittal, this Court has to examine the evidence on record with care and circumspection more particularly, when the Sessions Court has not taken the Dying Declarations into confidence to fix the culpability of the accused. This Court is also required to appreciate as to whether the findings recorded by the Sessions Court are sustainable or required to be reversed, by independently undertaking the exercise of re- appreciating the entire evidence available on record to arrive at the conclusions as to whether the accused are guilty of the offences registered against them and liable for conviction or entitled for acquittal, as the case may be.
The prosecution, in support of its case that the accused/respondents are responsible for the death of Sandhya Rani, examined P.Ws.1 to 13. Apart from the oral evidence to corroborate its case, the prosecution heavily relied on the Dying Declarations marked as Exs.P6 and P11 of Sandhya Rani recorded by the Head Constable P.W.8 and the learned Magistrate P.W.10 respectively, the evidentiary value of which would be discussed at the appropriate stage.
The case of the prosecution is based on two dying declarations and other evidence led to establish the motive as also the act of the accused causing the death of Sandhya Rani.
Before dealing with the two dying declarations and the veracity of the statements as well as evidentiary value of the said dying declarations, it would be appropriate to consider the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused. 12
The evidence of P.W.1- mother of the deceased, is to the effect that the marriage of Sandhya Rani and accused No.2 is a love marriage solemnized without their knowledge and P.W.1 accepted the same and performed again, since accused No.2 belong to their community. In her evidence she stated that the accused and deceased were initially living happily, but subsequently disputes arose between mother-in-law of Sandhya Rani i.e., accused No.1 and Sandhya Rani in connection with domestic work in their house at the initiation of accused No.1. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that accused No.1 used to quarrel with Sandhya Rani on the allegation that Sandhya Rani failed to attend the work in the hotel and she cannot maintain them with her income. She categorically deposed in her evidence that Sandhya Rani discontinued her job after she shifted to Marlapadu as she was not doing well after the birth of child. She also stated that one month ten days prior to the incident accused No.2 dropped Sandhya Rani at their house due to disputes between Sandhya Rani and accused No.1, when questioned, accused No.2 informed her that Sandhya Rani and accused No.1 used to quarrel with each other and demanded divorce from Sandhya Rani. Further, Sandhya Rani stayed for one week in her house and thereafter Sandhya Rani expressed her desire to go back to her husband's house and P.W.1 along with L.W.4-Grandhi Phani and one Galli Subba Rao dropped Sandhya Rani at her in-law's house and requested the accused persons not to quarrel with Sandhya Rani. She further stated that she did not talk to Sandhya Rani for about one month after they dropped Sandhya Rani at her house. P.W.1 also narrated that on invitation of accused No.2 and Sandhya Rani, she attended the birthday function of their son on 11th December and stayed till the next day morning. In her evidence she stated as she observed that Sandhya Rani was dull, she 13 enquired about the same and that Sandhya Rani informed that she doesn't know what was happening in the house as she found that gas was released in their house and gas pipe was removed and there was leaking of gas when she went for preparation of coffee in the early hours. She also deposed that though she enquired accused No.1 about the said incident, accused No.1 did not disclose any reason why the gas pipe was removed. She deposed that after the function was over, accused No.2 dropped P.W.1 and her grandchildren at about 11-00 a.m. in her house and that at about 12-00 or 12-15 p.m., accused No.2 telephoned to her elder daughter-P.W.2 and informed that Sandhya Rani poured kerosene on herself and he is taking her to hospital and asked them to come immediately. P.W.1 also stated that she went to the hospital along with P.W.2 and there they found Police, Judge or Lawyer present and taking the dying declaration of the deceased and that on seeing them, Sandhya Rani identified both of them and called her sister as 'Akka Akka' and informed them that accused No.1 poured kerosene on her and lit with a match stick and kept the match box in her hand and that after some time i.e., one or one and half hours, Sandhya Rani died in the hospital.
Though in the evidence of P.W.1 it is elicited that there are disputes between accused No.1 and Sandhya Rani, they are intermittent and nothing specific has been elicited in the evidence which could be treated as serious in nature. In her evidence nothing worth mentioning was elicited as to the cruelty or harassment meted out to Sandhya Rani on account of any demand for dowry or any other specific reason. P.W.1 herself stated that Sandhya Rani discontinued her employment after she shifted to Marlapadu as she was not doing well after the birth of child. Though in her evidence 14 P.W.1 stated that accused No.1 used to quarrel with Sandhya Rani on the allegation that she failed to attend the work in the hotel and accused No.1 cannot maintain them with her income, the evidence of other witnesses i.e., P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 has not corroborated the same. P.W.2 deposed that for some period Sandhya Rani attended to employment at Ongole from Marlapadu and thereafter her health was spoiled as such she gave up her employment at the instance of accused No.2 and from there onwards accused No.1 started ill-treating Sandhya Rani on the pretext that she is unable to maintain them, while it is to be noted that the statement in Ex.P.11 is to the effect that the accused No.1 is not interested in Sandhya Rani doing service as teacher and earning money. On the other hand, P.W.3, in whose house the accused and Sandhya Rani were staying, in his cross-examination stated that Sandhya Rani used to attend her employment and she was also attending hotel work occasionally and they never quarrelled or abused each other in his presence, while in his chief- examination he deposed that there were no talking terms between accused No.1 and Sandhya Rani, except attending their domestic work i.e., they were having misunderstandings. The statement of P.W.1 that they went to the hospital and on seeing them Sandhya Rani identified both of them and called her sister as 'Akka Akka' and informed them that accused No.1 poured kerosene on herself and lit match stick and kept the match box in her hand, is at variance with the evidence of P.W.2 and there is no corroboration.
Though P.W.1 denied the suggestion that there were no disputes between Sandhya Rani and accused and they were cordial till the death of Sandhya Rani, no grave incidents have been stated in her evidence which 15 points towards the commission of offence by accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 498-A of IPC.
Further, from the alleged leakage of gas incident stated to have been narrated by Sandhya Rani to P.W.1, possibility of Sandhya Rani sustaining burn injuries due to leakage of gas cannot be ruled out. Though the accused have taken such defence in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no evidence was adduced in that regard.
However, P.W.1 is not a direct witness and her evidence can be taken into consideration in the event the same is corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses to establish the link in the chain of circumstances.
P.W.2 - elder sister of Sandhya Rani also deposed in similar lines regarding the marriage of accused No.2 and Sandhya Rani and also their stay at the house of P.W.3 without paying any rent and in lieu of the same providing meal to P.W.3. In her evidence, she stated that the deceased used to attend her employment at Ongole from Marlapadu and sometime after her health was spoiled and as such she has given up her employment at the instance of accused No.2. Her evidence is to the effect that accused No.1 started ill-treating Sandhya Rani on the pretext that she is unable to maintain them, which is contrary to the testimony of P.W.1 that accused No.1 used to quarrel with Sandhya Rani on the allegation that she failed to work in the hotel and that accused No.1 cannot maintain them with her income. Though in her evidence P.W.2 stated that Sandhya Rani was sent away one month prior to her death after beating her severely, nothing is stated to that effect by P.W.1. In her examination-in-chief, P.W.2 stated 16 that she along with her mother went to RIMS Hospital, Ongole, accused No.2 came opposite to her and requested her to instruct Sandhya Rani not to give any statement against his mother-in-law/accused No.1, but P.W.1 in her evidence has not stated anything in that regard. Even the evidence of P.W.2 is at variance with the evidence of P.W.1. In her evidence P.W.1 stated that Sandhya Rani identified both of them and called P.W.2 as 'Akka Akka' and informed them that accused No.1 poured kerosene on herself and lit fire with a match stick and kept the match box in her hand. Whereas, P.W.2 stated that on enquiry with Sandhya Rani, she told her that after bath when she is applying powder to her face, at that juncture, accused No.1 came behind her and poured kerosene on her, set fire on her body and closed all the doors without giving any scope to escape from that place.
Thus, there is variance in the depositions of P.Ws.1 and 2. In the cross-examination P.W.2 denied the suggestion that gas stove accident has taken place in which flames engulfed Sandhya Rani and accused No.1 went to rescue her and she also sustained burn injuries, but stated that accused No.1 sustained those injuries when litting fire to Sandhya Rani. The said statement of P.W.2 cannot be accepted as she is not a direct witness to the incident, more particularly, in view of the categorical deposition of P.W.4 that accused No.1 sustained burn injuries while trying to put off the flames on Sandhya Rani. Thus, in view of the material variance in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as also in view of the categorical statement of P.W.4, the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 do not inspire confidence. Except referring to certain minor disputes and a mere denial to the suggestion that accused Nos.1 and 2 never harassed Sandhya Rani, no specific instances with 17 supporting proof could be elicited from P.W.2. Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 is not sufficient to establish any incident which is grave in nature and to substantiate the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC against accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
P.W.3's evidence, who is an independent witness, can be taken into consideration in support of the case of prosecution that the death of Sandhya Rani occurred at the residence of P.W.3. P.W.3 in his evidence testified the presence of accused No.1 and Sandhya Rani in the house when he was going to cattle shed in the morning on 12.12.2010. While deposing that there are no talking terms between accused No.1 and Sandhya Rani except attending to the domestic work, they were having misunderstandings, P.W.3 stated that the accused and Sandhya Rani never quarrelled or abused each other, in his presence, who is residing in the same house in a separate portion. He denied the suggestion that accused No.1 and Sandhya Rani were cordial. However, nothing could be elicited from P.W.3 which would show that there are serious disputes between accused No.1 and Sandhya Rani, except that they are not in talking terms and having misunderstandings. Even the evidence of P.W.3 would not indicate anything which would point out against the accused Nos.1 and 2 regarding commission of offences with which they are charged.
P.W.4 is the neighbour of P.W.3. P.W.4's evidence totally shatters the prosecution case. The prosecution has not declared this witness as hostile and subjected him to cross-examination, as such this Court is required to consider the evidence of P.W.4 along with the evidence of other witnesses. P.W.4 in his evidence categorically deposed that on the date of 18 incident he came out of his house after hearing loud cries and found the cries of Jaladanki Sandhya Rani (deceased) with flames. Though P.W.4 has not stated as to the cause how Sandhya Rani caught fire, he deposed that accused No.1 is about to put off the flames with water, and he advised her not to put off the flames with water and put off the flames with patta/gunny bag, on which accused No.1 put off the flames with the gunny bag. He categorically stated that accused No.1 sustained burn injuries while trying to put off the flames on the deceased. He also stated that he did not observe any disputes between the deceased and accused No.1. In the cross-examination he admitted the suggestion that the incident occurred nearer to the kitchen and further that it took place in the kitchen of the house of P.W.3.
P.W.4 is an independent witness and his testimony points out towards the innocence of accused No.1 coupled with the conduct of accused No.1 in trying to put off the flames on Sandhya Rani. Nothing could be elicited from P.W.4 which is suggestive of acts of cruelty to establish the guilt of accused No.1. for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC as also for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and against accused No.2 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. It may be pertinent to state here that the evidence of P.W.4 is also crucial for considering the place where the alleged incident occurred. While the place of occurrence of incident as per the evidence of P.W.4 is in the kitchen, the recovery of kerosene tin-M.O.1 from the hall as per Ex.P.2 report would throw any amount of doubt regarding the scene of offence, which according to prosecution case was the hall in Sandhya Rani's house. 19
The other witness P.W.5 speaks about the visit of scene of offence and observation report-Ex.P.2 made by P.W.12. He deposed that he along with L.W.12-Burra Subba Rao were present at the time of the said report and that P.W.12 seized M.O.1-kerosene tin, M.O.2-match box, M.O.3-half burnt cloth pieces, M.O.4-half burnt gunny bag, M,O.5-remaining cloth pieces after burnt, M.O.6-half burnt plastic bag and M.O.7-remaining burnt cloth pieces. In cross-examination P.W.5 categorically stated that M.Os.1 to 7 were seized from hall and room attached to it and from another room intervened by place.
At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to scene of offence observation report-Ex.P.2. In the said report, it is mentioned that on observing middle hall, there is a T.V., on the stand to the east side wall there are blankets and pillows on a table adjacent to the same, there is an iron safe adjacent to it and a cot with mattresses and also a tape (Navvar) cot was in standing position and near the said cot there is "capped" ( త టబ న) 5 litres kerosene can with letters 'Servo Super' and a match box adjacent to it. Thus, there is no corroboration of evidence between P.Ws.4 and 5 with regard to the scene of offence, since Ex.P.2 refers to some charred marks and burnt cloth pieces found in the Hall and the half burnt gunny bag (M.O.4) in the last room.
The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 would corroborate the case of prosecution that Sandhya Rani died due to burn injuries.
P.W.8 is a crucial prosecution witness, who recorded the dying declaration-Ex.P.6 of Sandhya Rani. His evidence can be relied on since he is an independent witness provided the same inspires confidence of this 20 Court. P.W.8 in his evidence stated that he had recorded the statement/dying declaration/Ex.P.6 of Sandhya Rani in the presence of duty Doctor by name Dr. M.Ramachandra Rao/P.W.11 and that after recording the statement he read over the contents therein to Sandhya Rani and she admitted the contents as true and correct. He also stated that he obtained the left hand thumb impression of Sandhya Rani on the said statement and obtained the endorsement of the duty Doctor/P.W.11.
As seen from Ex.P.6, the statement was recorded at 15-05 hours on 12.12.2010. No doubt there are some interpolations with regard to the time as recorded in Ex.P.6, since it is a dying declaration of the deceased, it has to be considered with more care and circumspection. P.W.8 in his cross-examination had stated that it took 30 to 45 minutes for recording Ex.P.6 statement, which would mean that it would have ended in between 03-35 to 03-50 p.m. In his cross-examination P.W.8 stated that the duty Doctor and his staff were present in the casualty when he went there for recording the statement of the deceased. Contrary to the same, P.W.11 in his cross-examination stated that he was in the casualty and attending the emergency patients while recording of the statement by the Police and the Magistrate and after completion of recording of the statement, he signed on Ex.P.6. Thus, the evidence of P.W.8 that he recorded the statement of the victim/Sandhya Rani in the presence of duty Doctor-P.W.11 loses credence. Though it is not compulsory that certification or presence of Doctor at the time of recording of dying declaration in the light of settled legal principles (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh & Ors. - AIR 2013 S.C. 2059 and Sher Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab - 2008(4) SCC 265), the variations in the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 11 would create a doubt as to the 21 genuineness of the statement/deposition of P.W.8 with reference to the dying declaration-Ex.P.6. Unless, it inspires the confidence of the Court that the dying declaration was recorded without any doubt as to the attending circumstances, it would not be safe to rely on the same, in as much as the accused would not have an opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the statement. As the evidence of P.W.8 is not corroborated by the duty Doctor-P.W.11, the same cannot be taken into consideration in support of the prosecution case.
P.W.9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR-Ex.P.8 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, on receipt of Ex.P.5-Hospital intimation and Ex.P.6-Statement of Sandhya Rani. According to the endorsement made on Ex.P.6, the same was received and registered on 12.12.2010 at 20.00 hours i.e., nearly four and half hours after recording of the dying declaration-Ex.P.6. He altered the section of Law and issued altered FIR-Ex.P.9 on 13.12.2010 at 01-30 a.m., pursuant to which P.W.12 took up investigation. Though the delay is not fatal, the same would raise a suspicion in view of the attending circumstances.
P.W.10 is the then II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. He is one of the crucial witnesses of the prosecution, who, on receipt of requisition-Ex.P.10 from Duty Doctor, Area Hospital, Ongole P.W.11, proceeded to the hospital and reached at 03-45 P.M. In his deposition P.W.10 stated that he traced the patient/victim with the help of the duty doctor- Dr.M.Ramachandra Rao/P.W.11 and before recording the statement, he posed some questions to the deponent/victim with a view to know the state of mind of declarant. He also stated that he was satisfied 22 with the answers given by the patient/victim and she is conscious, coherent and in fit state of mind to give statement and then he obtained certificate from the duty Doctor-P.W.11. He further stated that he concluded the statement-Ex.P.11 at 04-05 P.M. and recorded the descriptive particulars of the declarant after ascertaining from her. He specifically stated that duty Doctor was present throughout his recording of statement of Sandhya Rani and he also obtained endorsement of the Doctor who endorsed that the declarant/deceased was conscious and coherent.
He categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that no others were present at the time of recording the declaration from the declarant/Sandhya Rani except himself and the duty Doctor- Dr.M.Rama Chandra Rao-P.W.11. The evidence of P.W.10 would have to be necessarily taken into consideration as he is an independent official witness, who has nothing to do with either the prosecution or the accused. However, his evidence can be taken into consideration provided the same is supported by the evidence of P.W.11, though per se, the same is not compulsory in Law.
As seen from the evidence of P.W.11, though in his examination-in- chief P.W.11 has supported the version of P.W.10 as well as P.W.8 insofar as the endorsement made by him and recording of statements of Sandhya Rani in his presence, in his cross-examination he stated that "I was in casualty and attending with the emergency patient while recording the statements by the Police and the Magistrate." Thus, though there is no requirement in Law that the Doctor's presence or certification is mandatory while recording the dying declarations, in view of the contradictory 23 statements in the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11, it would not be safe to rely on the evidence of P.W.10 in support of the prosecution case.
The evidence of P.W.11 in examination-in-chief is to the effect that the patient/victim was conscious and coherent and was in fit state of mind at the time of commencement of recording the statement and also during the statement given by her to the Magistrate and subsequently Jaladanki Sandhya died in the hospital.
However, in the cross-examination, it was elicited from P.W.11 that he was in the casualty and attending the emergency patient while recording of the statements by the Police and the Magistrate, that after completion of recording of the statement he signed on Ex.P.6. He further stated that he has no knowledge when the police commenced recording of the statement and concluded. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that after commencing to record the statement, he was busy with other emergency patients. Thus, the evidence of P.W.11 is contrary to his own statements and also to the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 10. In view of the said inconsistencies/variations, the evidence of P.W.11 not only dilutes the case of the prosecution, but also loses its significance, which in the ordinary course of events would have to be given much weight and credence.
P.W.12 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation in this case, nothing worth mentioning is elicited from his evidence in support of the prosecution case, except that he has visited scene of offence, made observation report-Ex.P.2, Tahsildar-P.W.6 conducted the inquest and that he arrested accused No.2 at Addanki Bus-stand, Ongole on 17.12.2010. In the cross-examination it is elicited from him that on 12.12.2010 at about 24 08-30 P.M., the Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W.9 informed him about the registration of case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. He further deposed that on 02.01.2011 he obtained copy of dying declarations and saw the same for the first time on that date. It is also elicited from him in the cross-examination that he visited the scene of offence and enquired about accused No.1 and learnt that she is in the hospital and that he saw accused No.1 in the hospital casually during his verification about the surveillance. He did not examine her about the incident while she was in the hospital. The evidence of P.W.12 is very formal in nature and not sufficient to corroborate the case of the prosecution and establish the links to complete the chain of circumstances and bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against them.
Thus, on an overall consideration of the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused, this Court is of the view that the motive which plays crucial role could not be established against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, circumstantial evidence is secondary and loses its significance, if the prosecution could establish its case on the basis of the substantial evidence i.e., dying declarations of the deceased - Exs.P.6 and P.11 recorded by P.W.8 and P.W.10 respectively.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down guidelines to base conviction of the accused for grave offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. on dying declarations in Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat5, Bhajju @ Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh6 etc., and the 5 AIR 1992 SC 1817 6 AIR 2012 CRL. 400 25 same were reiterated in Umakant & Anr. v. State of Chattisgarh7. The relevant paras in the said Judgment reads as follows:-
"18. The philosophy of law which signifies the importance of a dying declaration is based on the maxim "nemo moritusus prasumitus mennre", which means, "no one at the time of death is presumed to lie and he will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth". Though a dying declaration is not recorded in the Court in the presence of accused nor it is put to strict proof of cross- examination by the accused, still it is admitted in evidence against the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible in evidence. The dying declaration does not even require any corroboration as long as it inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and that it is free from any form of tutoring. At the same time, dying declaration has to be judged and appreciated in the light of surrounding circumstances. The whole point in giving lot of credence and importance to the piece of dying declaration, deviating from the rule of evidence is that such declaration is made by the victim when he/she is on the verge of death.
19. In spite of all the importance attached and the sanctity given to the piece of dying declaration, Courts have to be very careful while analyzing the truthfulness, genuineness of the dying declaration and should come to a proper conclusion that the dying declaration is not a product of prompting or tutoring.
20. The legal position about the admissibility of a dying declaration is settled by this Court in several judgments. This Court in Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi - 2010 (9) SCC 1, taking into consideration the earlier judgments of this Court in Paniben v. State of Gujarat - 1992 (2) SCC 474 and another judgment of this Court in Panneerselvam v. State of Tamilnadu - 2008 (17) SCC 190 has given certain guidelines while considering a dying declaration:7
2014 (7) SCC 405 26
1. Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires full confidence of the Court.
2. The Court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.
3. Where the Court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration.
4. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborative. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.
5. Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
6. A dying declaration which suffers from infirmities, such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.
7. Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.
8. Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded.
9. When the eye-witness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail.
10. If after careful scrutiny the Court is satisfied that it is free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration."
Thus, in the light of the above guidelines followed in number of cases dealing with matters based on dying declarations, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.11 recorded by P.W.8 and P.W.10 respectively are required to be considered. 27
As per Ex.P.6 since Sandhya Rani is doing job and getting the ornaments prepared, accused No.1 used to quarrel and asked her to not to do the job and to stay at home. Whereas, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 mother and elder sister of Sandhya Rani is altogether different. P.W.1 in her evidence deposed that Sandhya Rani discontinued her job after she shifted to Marlapadu Village as she was not doing well after the birth of child. P.W.2 stated that Sandhya Rani used to attend her job at Ongole from Marlapadu and thereafter her health was spoiled as such she gave up job at the instance of accused No.2. The statement of Sandhya Rani in the dying declaration would indicate that the accused No.1 is not interested in Sandhya Rani doing job, but the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is to the effect that accused No.1 used to quarrel/ill-treat Sandhya Rani on the pretext that accused No.1 is unable to maintain them after Sandhya Rani discontinued job due to health reasons. Though in Ex.P.6 it was stated that the husband of Sandhya Rani used to beat her by hearing the words of the accused No.1, P.W.1 and P.W.2 haven not referred to such incidents, except the statement of P.W.2 in her chief examination that one month prior to the date of death, Sandhya Rani was sent away to her house at Ongole after beat her severely, but P.W.1 did not state any thing in this regard in her evidence. The said sole incident is not corroborated by any other evidence. Further, there are variations even with regard to the occurrence of the incident as deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the statement of the deceased. While P.W.1 deposed that on seeing them Sandhya Rani identified both of them, called P.W.2 'Akka Akka' and informed them that accused No.1 poured kerosene on her and lit fire with a match stick and kept the match box in her hand, P.W.2 stated that when her sister- Sandhya Rani called 'Akka Akka' she went to her and when she 28 enquired with her, Sandhya Rani told P.W.2 that after she had a bath and applying powder to her face, at that juncture accused No.1 came behind Sandhya Rani and poured petrol on her and set fire on her body and closed all the doors without giving any scope to escape from that place. Whereas, as per Dying Declaration-Ex.P.6, it is stated that while Sandhya Rani was applying Fair and Lovely after she took bath and wore a saree, the accused No.1 came calmly from behind, poured kerosene in the tin from above shoulders, lit match box and kept match box in her hand. In the Dying Delcaration Ex.P.11 to the Magistrate/P.W.10, it is recorded that Sandhya Rani wore silk saree, applied Fair and Lovely, accused No.1 came from behind, poured kerosene, lit the match stick, after litting, kept match stick and kerosene tin in her hand. These variations would to some extent create a suspicion with regard to the veracity of the statements as per Exs.P.6 and P.11. Be that as it may, both the statements are consistent to the extent of pouring of kerosene by the accused No.1 and litting of match box/match stick though there is variation/inconsistency with regard to putting of kerosene tin in the hands of deceased. This is yet another doubtful circumstance not only with regard to putting the match stick and kerosene tin in the hands of Sandhya Rani after litting match stick, but also with regard to keeping the match box in the hands of Sandhya Rani. Had the match box been kept in the hands of Sandhya Rani, there is every possibility of match box being burnt and further kerosene can (as described in the Ex.P.2) getting melted due to heat. But material objects recovered by the police under the cover of Ex.P.2 would not indicate any such significant aspects. On the other hand as noticed from Ex.P.2-scene of offence observation report, the police seized M.O.1-"capped" ( త టబ న) 5 liter servo super named kerosene can and a match 29 box/M.O.2 found beside it. The accused No.1 closing the cap of kerosene can after pouring kerosene and before putting it in the hands of deceased also appears to be highly improbable. Further, going according to the statement of Sandhya Rani, from the scene of offence, no Fair and Lovely cream which Sandhya Rani was applying/applied at the time of pouring of kerosene was recovered. Further, though statements in Exs.P.6 and P.11 refers that Sandhya Rani caught hold of her mother-in-law, the evidence of P.W.4 is to the effect that accused No.1 was about to put off the flames on Sandhya Rani with water and on his advise, accused No.1 put off the flames with gunny bag. It is also the evidence of P.W.4 that accused No.1 sustained burn injuries while trying to put off the flames on Sandhya Rani. Nothing is stated by P.W.4 about closure of all doors supporting the version of P.W.2 as informed to her by Sandhya Rani. P.W.4's evidence remained in-tact as he was not declared hostile and in the light of the same, the credence to be attached to the dying declaration got faded away leaving a doubt as to the genuineness of the same. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 is to the effect that by the time she along with P.W.1 reached the hospital, they were instructed to stay out side as the Magistrate was recording the statement of victim/Sandhya Rani. According to P.W.10, he started recording the statement at 03-45 P.M. and completed it by 04-05 p.m., in the meanwhile at 04-00 p.m. as per Ex.X.1, victim/patient developed breathlessness and while undergoing treatment died at 04-30 P.M. Therefore, P.W.2's version of meeting Sandhya Rani after recording of statement by Magistrate would also raise a doubt as to the veracity of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and credibility of Exs.P.6 and P.11. 30
Another aspect apart from interpolations in the timings at different places in Ex.X.1, is that P.W.10-Magistrate stated that he started recording the statement at 03-45 P.M. and concluded by 04-05 P.M. and Doctor/P.W.11 also endorsed that the patient was coherent throughout recording of statement. Whereas, as per Ex.X.1, the patient developed breathlessness at 04-00 P.M. and died at 04-30 P.M., which would mean that the condition of Sandhya Rani cannot be considered to be good during recording of statement. As discussed earlier in view of the variations/ inconsistencies in the evidence with regard to recording of statements/dying declarations-Ex.P.6 and P.11 by P.W.8 and P.W.10 with that of P.W.11, it would not be safe to rely on Exs.P.6 and P.11.
It is settled law that unless the dying declarations inspire the confidence of the Court, the same shall not be treated as substantive evidence to fix the culpability of the accused. Various factors are in favour of the accused No.1 pointing out toward her innocence rather than the charges levelled against her. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh8 while dealing with two different dying declarations of the deceased which were mutually at variance held as follows:-
"9. The doctrine of dying declaration is enshrined in the legal maxim 'Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire', which means 'a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth'. The doctrine of Dying Declaration is enshrined in Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called as, 'the Evidence Act') as an exception to the general rule contained in Section 60 of the Evidence Act, which provides that oral evidence in all cases must be direct i.e. it must be the evidence of a witness, who says he saw it. The dying declaration 8 (2010)8 SCC 514 31 is, in fact, the statement of a person, who cannot be called as witness and, therefore, cannot be cross-examined. Such statements themselves are relevant facts in certain cases.
10. This Court has considered time and again the relevance/ probative value of dying declarations recorded under different situations and also in cases where more than one dying declaration has been recorded. The law is that if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and made voluntarily by the deceased, conviction can be based solely on it, without any further corroboration.
It is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that a dying declaration cannot be relied upon without corroboration. When a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be relied upon without having corroborative evidence. The court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased must be in a fit state of mind to make the declaration and must identify the assailants. Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details of the occurrence, it cannot be rejected and in case there is merely a brief statement, it is more reliable for the reason that the shortness of the statement is itself a guarantee of its veracity. If the dying declaration suffers from some infirmity, it cannot alone form the basis of conviction. Where the prosecution's version differs from the version given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon."
In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish its case through corroborative evidence to prove motive and the substantive evidence of dying declarations do not inspire confidence of this Court, in view of the inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.8, P.w.10 and P.W.11 and this Court, therefore, cannot hold the accused guilty on the basis of said dying declarations as they are lacking in credibility. The prosecution failed to bring home the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled for acquittal. Though there are circumstances which point out against the accused No.1, the 32 same however, in the light of the discussion supra would not be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the accused No.1 is guilty of charges levelled against her. The evidence of P.W.4 and conduct of accused No.1 in trying to put off the flames on victim/Sandhya Rani are strong circumstances in favour of the accused No.1 to take a view that she is innocent. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Singh9 that;
"A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform."
At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the views of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal10, that;
"A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent."
It is also settled law that where two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused shall be upheld. In this regard it may be profitable to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umakat & Anr. v. State of Chattisgarh (referred to supra) and the relevant paragraph reads thus:
"25. The burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other 9 AIR 1988 SC 1998 10 (2003) 11 SCC 527 33 towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
In the present case, the Sessions Court had considered the evidence scrupulously and recorded the conclusion holding the accused are not guilty and extended the benefit in favour of them in the attending facts and circumstances of the case. There is no perversity, unreasonableness in the view taken by it, which is possible in its opinion and the same warrants no interference, more particularly, in the light of the conclusion arrived at independently by this Court on re-appreciation of evidence.
In Muralidhar @ Gidda v. State of Karnataka11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu[3], Madan Mohan Singh[4], Atley[5] , Aher Raja Khima[6], Balbir Singh[7], M.G. Agarwal[8], Noor Khan[9], Khedu Mohton[10], Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade[11], Lekha Yadav[12], Khem Karan[13], Bishan Singh[14], Umedbhai Jadavbhai[15], K. Gopal Reddy[16], Tota Singh[17], Ram Kumar[18], Madan Lal[19], Sambasivan[20], Bhagwan Singh[21], Harijana Thirupala[22], C. Antony[23], K. Gopalakrishna[24], Sanjay Thakran[25] and Chandrappa[26]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power 11 (2014) 5 SCC 730 34 of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view.
The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court."
As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaffar Badshaha Pathan v. State of Maharashtra12, the view taken by the trial Court is not unreasonable or perverse or against settled principles of standards of proof and evaluation of evidence in criminal case.
After careful analysis of the evidence on record and the circumstances on the basis of the principles laid down in the decisions referred to supra, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of the Sessions Court, though the reasoning is not similar, since the view taken by the Sessions Court is a possible view in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
12
(2004) 10 SCC 589 35 Accordingly, the contentions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor are rejected and the arguments of learned counsel for respondents upheld. The points 1 and 2 are accordingly answered in favour of respondents and against the State. The Judgment and acquittal in favour of the accused/respondents are confirmed and the appeal filed by the State is dismissed.
As a result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the Calendar and Judgment in Sessions Case No.323 of 2011 dated 18.03.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole.
______________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J ______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 04.09.2020 AKC 36 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.705 of 2015 Dt: 04.09.2020 AKC