Proper scrutiny of evidence and correct application of legal provisions are essential for ensuring justice in criminal cases.

ORDER :

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.

The sordid tale of young girl resulting in her death by burn injuries is the subject matter of this appeal before this Court. The evidence of the daughter of the deceased as is available on record clearly brings out the state of affairs prevalent between the husband and the wife since the eight year old daughter has been quite categorical to her statement that her father very often had quarrels with the mother and on the fateful day her father brought kerosene from outside just to pour it on her mother and set her on fire. The girl went on to depose that after setting her mother on fire the father went away on the scooter along with his friend and the mother suffered severe burn injuries all over the body.

2. It is only neighbours who could come in rescue of the mother and took her to the hospital where she died on the next day. Incidentally, there are three children out of the wedlock and two of them were staying with the grand mother and since the death of the mother, the deponent - the eight year old girl also went and stayed with the grand mother.

3. The records depict that the inspector of police, Begumpet - police station, Hyderabad filed a charge sheet against the accused person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. There were two dying declarations which, however, we would avoid repeating herein by reason of the order as below. The fact remains that the learned sessions judge thought it expedient to convict the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years.

4. The learned sessions judge came to a finding that a combined reading of all the evidence on record proved beyond doubt that the victim committed suicide by burning herself on account of harassment by the accused and the accused thus abetted to commit the commission of suicide by the deceased. The state government, however, thought it prudent not to go further in appeal against the judgment of the learned sessions judge. We are not expressing any opinion in that regard as to the prudent application of mind on behalf of the state Government in not going further in appeal. Be that as it may, the matter went up in appeal before the High Court which order is under challenge before us by the state government. The High Court dealt with the matter unfortunately in a very slipshod fashion without dealing with the evidence and contrary to the methodology of disposal of matter in first appeal. As the first appellate court, the High Court has a duty as also obligation to delve into the issue and to deal with the matter in all its perspectives in accordance with the provisions of law. Unfortunately, the High Court has dealt with the matter totally under a misconception and misreading of the provisions of law.

Eventually, however, the High Court convicted the accused under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and on the prayer that the accused being a constable in the armed reserve force any conviction may have stigma on his employment, the accused was directed to be released under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 3,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court.

5. Leniency in the matter of sentence may be justified under certain situations but by reason of the fact that the accused person's service may be in jeopardy, should not, however, be the reason for such leniency. In any event, as noticed above, the High Court dealt with the matter, unfortunately, in a manner which cannot but be ascribed to be sketchy Appreciation of evidence upon proper scrutiny is totally lacking and resultantly there is existing a miscarriage of justice.

6. In that view of the matter we think it proper to remit the matter back to the High Court for being dealt with on merits having due regard to the evidence on record.

7. The observations made hereinbefore ought not to