The reliability of dying declarations, the importance of consistency in witness statements, and the principle that if two reasonable conclusions are possible based on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and order dated 27.12.1996 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.157 of 1996, whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents accused from the charges levelled against them for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A, 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief allegations of the prosecution against the respondents – accused, as per charge, are as under:

2.1. That the deceased Gitaben had married to Pankajkumar, the son of the accused No.1 three years prior to the incident and thus, the accused No.1 was mother-in-law of the deceased, the accused No.2 was brother-in-law of the deceased and the accused No.3 was sister-in-law of the deceased. Prior to the incident, the accused persons used to taunt and torture deceased Gitaben mentally and physically regarding household chores and thereby, the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code.

At about nine o'clock in the morning on 07/03/1996, at the residence of the accused persons situated at Jotana, the accused persons colluded with each other with an intent to kill deceased Gitaben and in furtherance of their common intention and objective, the accused No.3, when Gitaben was mopping the floor, told her, “You do not do the household chores.” and mentally tortured her and spoke abusive words to her and poured a kerosene over her from a tin can and the accused No.2 covered the deceased Gitaben's mouth when the accused No.1 was present there and the accused No.3 lit a match stick and set deceased Gitaben on fire. As a result of such act of the accused persons, when deceased Gitaben was screaming with burns, her minor son Mital, present nearby, came running and embraced her, due to which, he also sustained burn injuries and died from the serious injuries during treatment on 07/03/1996 and deceased Gitaben died from burn injuries during treatment on 08/03/1996. In this way, the accused persons, having a common intention, deliberately committed death of deceased Gitaben and her son Mital and thereby, committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the accused persons, at the same place, time and date, having a common intention, abetted each other in this act of burning deceased Gitaben alive by pouring kerosene over her and thereby, committed an offence under section 114 of I.P.C. also.

3. After the registration of the First Information Report, the investigating officer carried out the investigation and during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses and also prepared various Panchnamas. After the investigation was over, the investigating officer filed the charge- sheet against the respondents accused before the concerned Magistrate Court. The concerned Magistrate, thereafter, committed the case under Section 209 of the Code to the learned Sessions Court, Mehsana as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Before the Sessions Court, the case was registered as Sessions Case No.157 of 1996.

4. During the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence before the learned Trial Court. After conclusion of the trial, further statements of the respondents accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded and thereafter the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal as observed hereinabove. The State has, therefore, preferred present appeal.

5. Heard learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Jani for the respondents – original accused.

6. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that respondent No.1 – Manguben Jagjivandas Dhobi died on 02.03.2008 a