The importance of circumstantial evidence, the rejection of dying declarations, and the need for accused persons to explain the circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Vide order dated 14.03.2006 rule was issued.

2. The applicant is the father of the deceased Seema who married with respondent No. 1 on 21.02.2000. However, she succumbed to the burn injuries on 23.03.2000. The incident occurred in the house of the accused persons. The deceased Seema sustained 81% burn injuries. The statement of deceased Seema recorded by the Police Officer in the hospital was considered as FIR. On the same day, her dying declaration was recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate wherein, she implicated accused persons for her death. Therefore, the FIR was lodged vide Crime No. 27/2000 at Parbhani Police Station, initially under Sections 307, 498-A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). Upon death of victim Seema, Section 302 of the IPC was added.

3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charges were framed against the accused and thereafter prosecution examined the witnesses in order to prove such charges. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani vide its judgment dated 26.07.2004 acquitted all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

4. The State through Parbhani Police Station did not file appeal challenging such acquittal. Therefore, the father of victim preferred present revision challenging the acquittal on various grounds as disclosed in the revision application.

5. The record and proceedings were called and thereafter, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

6. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and Smt. Choudhari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

7. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I perused the entire record and more specifically the findings of the learned Trial Court while acquitting all the accused persons.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant forcefully submitted that deceased died in suspicious circumstances in the matrimonial house. She sustained 81% burn injuries. Such incident took place within a period of one (01) month from the marriage of the deceased with accused No. 1. When she was admitted in the hospital on the day of incident i.e. 23.03.2000, her statement was recorded by the Police wherein, she implicated all the accused persons and such statement was considered as FIR. Similarly, on the same day dying declaration of the deceased Seema was recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate. The Doctor opined that deceased Seema was in a fit state of mind to give her statement. In this dying declaration she further implicated accused persons for her death. The deceased Seema succumbed to the burn injuries on the same day. Both these dying declarations were rejected by the learned Trial Court on giving reasons which are not acceptable and against the settled proposition of law. He then submitted that observations of the learned Trial Court regarding accidental death are on the basis of surmises and conjectures and not based on the material placed before it. He submitted that spot panchanama, inquest panchanama and the post mortem report were admitted by the defence. The spot panchanama is in the kitchen of the house of the accused. Therefore, it was for the accused persons to explain as to how deceased suffered 81% burn injuries. He then submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to come to the conclusion that death of deceased Seema was not homicidal. The discussion in the judgment is not conclusive to that effect. He therefore, prayed that the judgment needs to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be remanded for fresh consideration.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 tried to defend the reasons given by the learned Trial Court in its judgme