IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in dying declarations can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)

1. The present appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.12.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Session case No.11 of 2000. By the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Court acquitted the respondents-accused for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 306 304(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. It is the case arising out of an incident by which the informant herself, viz. Prasannaba (since deceased), who is wife of accused No.1 and daughter-in-law of accused No.2 resident of Jamnagar was time and again being harassed by the respondents-accused for the dowry and due to continuous harassment, she herself set on fire by poring kerosene on 09.10.1999. She was taken to Irvin Hospital on, where she gave dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate. Ultimately, she succumbed to her injuries and died on 10.10.1999. In this connection, FIR came to be registered with Jamnagar “B” Division Police Station.

3. Learned APP submitted that it is a case of dying declaration, where deceased was in conscious state of mind and gave her dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate. It is submitted that the marriage span was only of three years and doe to continuous harassment by the respondents-accused for dowry, the deceased had set herself on fire.

3.1 It is submitted that the Sessions Court has taken into consideration the evidence of hostile witnesses, i.e. parents of the deceased, whereas dying declaration of the deceased recorded before the Executive Magistrate has not been taken into consideration, which is most crucial and material evidence and the said dying declaration clearly suggested involvement of the respondents-accused in the offence.

3.2 It is submitted that apart from dying declaration, there are other corroborating evidences, i.e. medical evidence, which supports the case of prosecution.

3.3 Learned APP relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Chinubhai @ Chinyo Vadilal Thakore, reported in 2016JX (Guj.) 1692 and submitted that the appellate Court can re-appreciate and review the evidence upon which acquittal is recorded by the trial Court.

3.4 Learned APP also relied upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajendra S/o Ramdas Kothe Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2024 SC, 2682 and submitted that once a dying declaration is found to be authentic and inspiring confidence of the Court then the same can be relied upon and can be sole basis for conviction without any corroboration.

4. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondents-accused submitted that there is contradiction between the time of dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the Police authorities.

4.1 It is submitted that the deceased was of unstable mind and before marriage also, she had taken treatment for the same, which has come on record in the depositions of her partners.

4.2 It is submitted that it has not come on record from deposition of any of the witnesses that the deceased was harassed by the respondents-accused for demand of dowry. On the contrary, marriage life of the deceased was going on very well.

4.3 It is submitted that parents and brother of the deceased have turned hostile and have not supported case of prosecution and in fact, they all have deposed that the deceased was of unstable mind. The Sessions Court has therefore rightly recorded acquittal.

5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that to prove the case against the respondents-accused, the prosecution relied upon following oral evidence:-