ORDER: The revision petitioner who is the mother of the deceased has filed the above criminal revision case against the acquittal judgment dated 11.11.1993 rendered in S.C.No.43 of 1997 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore on averments such as that the accused contracted into a bigamous marriage with the petitioner’s daughter, the deceased on 29.5.1994; that demanding money and jewellery from her as dowry the first respondent started ill-treating the deceased for quite sometime; that on 22.6.1994 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused in pursuance of the aforesaid demand picked up a wordy quarrel with the deceased and thereafter with the intention of causing her death poured kerosene upon her and set fire on her resulting in the deceased sustaining extensive burn injuries and dying of shock and septicemia; that charge-sheet was laid against the accused for an offence punishable under Sec.302 of the I.P.C.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above criminal revision case, the petitioner would submit that lot of evidence was putforth by the prosecution before the trial Court in proof of the guilt of the accused and in fact the prosecution examined 19 witnesses for oral evidence and marked 22 documents as exhibits for documentary evidence; that on the part of the accused absolutely no evidence has been brought forth and inspite of that the lower Court had arrived at the erroneous conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges as against the accused for an offence punishable under Sec.302 of the I.P.C. Beyond reasonable doubt, thus registering an acquittal Judgment on record.

3. The revision petitioner would further submit that the main ground to discard the prosecution case according to the Courts of Sessions below was that P.W.8 had not certified Ex.P-11 to the effect that the deceased was in a disposing state of mind at the time of making declaration; that it is not the correct enunication of law as it is indeed a hyper-technical view when P.W.9 Magistrate and P.W.8 doctor have categorically admitted that they were satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at that time when P.W.9 recorded her dying declaration. The petitioner would therefore, stating that the trial Court eschewing all the corroborative materials placed and circumstances shown in the case, has unreasonably and in an erroneous manner acquitted the accused and on such grounds has come forward to file the above criminal revision case to set aside the judgment of the lower Court as aforementioned.

4. During arguments the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, besides narrating the facts involved in the above case would further submit that the trial Court has given a finding that the doctor made endorsement in the dying declaration has not stated whether the deceased was in a fit state of mind while giving her statement; that in a criminal case, the accused should raise all their points during the cross-examination and that they cannot raise them during arguments; that the accused failed to raise such pleas when there was no defence putforth during the cross-examination of the witness concerned and hence he cannot raise the point at a belated stage; that the statement of the deceased had been recorded immediately after the occurrence. The learned counsel would also cite two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the first one reported in Kanaksingh Raisingh Rav v. State of Gujarat,(2002)8 Supreme 419 and the second one reported in P. V.Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka,(2003)5 Supreme 98.

5. So far as the first judgment cited above reported in Kanaksingh Raisingh Rav v. State of Gujarat,(2002)8 Supreme 419 is concerned, on facts of a murder by pouring kerosene and setting ablaze his wife, while assessing the Evidence Act particularly Sec.32 regarding the dying declaration given to a doctor since the Judicial Magistrate was not available, their Lordships have held that in a case of dying declaration recorded by a do

Click Here to Read the rest of this document