The authenticity of a dying declaration must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in attestation and the condition of the deceased can cast doubt on its reliability.

JUDGMENT

Rajnesh Oswal, J. - The judgment dated 18.02.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in case titled, State of J & K vs. Ram Karan Singh@ Karan Singh for commission of offences under sections 302 and 201 RPC arising out of FIR No. 95/2011 of Police Station, Miran Sahib, has been impugned by the appellant in this appeal on the ground that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has passed the judgment in a mechanical manner.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that FIR bearing No. 95/2011 dated 12.09.2011 was initially registered under section 307 RPC with Police Station, R.S. Pura against the respondent on the receipt of the statement of Anita Devi, wife of respondent, recorded by Head Constable Jangi Ram in Government Medical College (GMC) Hospital Jammu wherein she had stated that on 12.09.2011 at 12.30 P.M. she asked her husband to take meals but he stated that he would not take the meals of her hands and she asked him as to whether he has kept some other lady. Respondent replied that he has kept some other lady and he would desert her. Thereafter, the accused/respondent gave her some poisonous medicine in the water and she became unconscious. She died in the hospital on 13.09.2011 and offence was converted into 302 RPC. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and during investigation he found that after making his wife to consume poison in a glass of water, the accused threw the glass in the canal. After the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the respondent for commission of offences, under section 302 and 201 RPC before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, R.S. Pura and the same was committed to the trial court. Vide order dated 26.12.2011, the respondent was charged for commission of aforementioned offence. As the respondent did not plead guilty, so the prosecution was directed to lead evidence and all the 14 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined.

3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the dying declaration but still the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent.

4. As this court is dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the acquittal recorded by the trial court, it is apt to examine the scope of interference with judgment of acquittal. In N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N., (2021) 3 SCC 687, Apex Court has held as under:

'20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a 'possible view', having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415] has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432)

'42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressi