ORDER :

The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

1. The present Criminal Appeal, by way of Special Leave arises out of the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Gwalior, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the respondent thereby acquitting him of the charge under Section 302, IPC while sustaining his conviction under Section 498A, IPC and sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment thereunder.

2. A conspectus of the facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as follows: the respondent, after marrying the deceased, was allegedly cruel towards her and used to hit her and demand dowry. On 29.03.2003, the respondent allegedly hit the deceased, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. On hearing her screams, the neighbours and relatives arrived and helped the respondent douse the flames. She was taken to the hospital and subsequently passed away on 09.04.2003.

3. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 304B, IPC but convicted him for the offences under Sections 302 and 498A, IPC. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and 2 years rigorous imprisonment respectively. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the respondent filed an appeal before the High Court. As already stated above, the High Court vide the impugned judgment partly allowed his appeal-acquitting him under Section 302, IPC but sustaining his conviction and sentence under Section 498A, IPC.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant-State has filed the present appeal by way of special leave.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-State and the respondent at length.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent from the charge under Section 302, IPC by discarding the statements dated 30.03.2003 and 03.04.2003 made by the deceased. The Trial Court had analyzed the evidence in the correct perspective and had rightly convicted the respondent under Section 302, IPC by relying upon the dying declaration dated 30.03.2003, which had been recorded by the Tehsildar.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the High Court rightly discarded the statements made by the deceased as they were contradictory. He further submitted that the appellant had not raised sufficient grounds in the present appeal to merit interference in the judgment acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 302, IPC.

8. From the arguments advanced, it is clear that the learned counsel for the appellant is seeking to assail the acquittal of the respondent under Section 302, IPC by essentially challenging the findings of the High Court on essentially factual issues.

9. It is a settled proposition of law that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, does not generally reappraise evidence or decide issues of fact which have already been determined by the High Court. This Court in State of U.P. v. Babul Nath, (1994) 6 SCC 29 held as follows:

“5. At the very outset we may mention that in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution this Court does not normally reappraise the evidence by itself and go into the question of credibility of the witnesses and the assessment of the evidence by the High Court is accepted by the Supreme Court as final unless, of course, the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record...”

(emphasis supplied)

10. Apart from the above, the fact that the appellant-State is in appeal against a finding of acquittal passed by the High Court should also not be lost sight of. An appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere with a judgment