IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal against acquittal – Accused having secured his acquittal, presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by trial Court.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

Rajendra M. Sareen, J.—This appeal is filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 15.07.2016, passed in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2012 by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar recording the acquittal.

2. Facts in brief are that on 03.08.2011 in the morning hours, when complainant was coming towards Jamnagar from Jabalpur, when he reached near Lalpur Chowkdi, has received telephonic message that his mother - Pravinaba has received burn injuries and she is admitted in GG Hospital, Jamnagar. When he reached the hospital, his mother was in burnt condition and she had stated to the complainant that on 03.08.2011 at about 6:00 a.m., when she was going for latrine, their neighbour Hajuben, who is accused No.1 in this case came out from her house and started combing her hair in front of deceased Pravinaben. Hence, she felt that accused No.1 will do something to her and therefore, she went to her house and took out kerosene tin and went to the kitchen of accused No.1, poured kerosene on herself and burnt herself. Therefore, case of the complainant is that his mother deceased – Pravinaba committed suicide by burning herself on account of mental harassment and ill treatment from the respondents – accused, since it is alleged that both the accused were harassing her since long. A complainant lodged the FIR in question against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as “the IPC”).

2.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence in question. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the respondents - accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the respondents - accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2016, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents - accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H. D. Mehta for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Premal S. Rachh for the for respondents – accused. Perused the record.

3.1 The learned APP has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned APP further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the respondents – accused.

3.2 The learned APP further contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons have harassed the deceased mentally and tortured her for one for the other reason, which led her to commit suicide.

3.3 The learned APP for the appellant – State submitted that despite sufficient material was there on record in support of the case of the prosecution and though the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has committed error in discarding the evidence on record and not believing the same.

3.4 It is submitted that the trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that when a person has received 95 to 97% burn injuries over the body then he or she cannot give dying declaration for 42 minutes and thereby, the dying declaration was ignored by the trial Court. As such due to this reason only, dying declaration cannot be ignored by the trial