LexJAYABALAN versus U.T. OF PONDICHERRY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 736 A JAYABALAN i- v. U.T. OF PONDICHERRY ~ ... (Criminal Appeal No. 1246 of 2002) NOVEMBER 6, 2009 B [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder by husband - Strained relations between the couple - Case based on ,.._ c circumstantial evidence - Oral dying declaration made to two PWs - Some of the witnesses related to the deceased - Acquittal by trial court- Conviction by High Court- On appeal, held: Prosecution case proved - High Court rightly convicted the accused relying on the dying declaration - Version of PWs are reliable - They cannot be discarded for their being related .. D with the deceased - The plea that it was a suicidal attempt not proved from the facts - There was no delay in lodging FIR or sending it to Magistrate - Accused failed to give adequate l-- explanation for incriminating circumstances. Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - When the case is E based Qn circumstantial evidence, an incriminating circumstance put to the accused, if not explained or explanation is found to be untrue, the same becomes an - additional link in the chain of circumstances. Dying Declaration - Reliability on - Dying declaration can F be made sole basis of conviction, if true and voluntary and is not result of tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination. Witness - Related witness - Reliance on - Held: While accepting evidence of such witnesses, court should be cautious, but not suspicious. ~ G Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Interference with - Scope of - Held: Entire evidence is open for review before appellate court- If acqLJittal is perverse, illegal and grossly ~- unjust, it can be interfered with. H 736 JAYABALAN v. U.T. OF PONDICHERRY 737 Criminal Law - Presumption of innocence - Held: such A ,. presumption, which starts at trial stage, continues upto appellate stage. Appellant was prosecuted u/s. 302 IPC for killing his ( wife. According to prosecution, relations between the ........._ couple were strained. Accused did not allow the deceased 8 to spend even her own earned money and used to suspect her fidelity. Two months prior to the date of incident, deceased had complained to her parents that she # apprehended threat to her life from the accused. Fifteen , days prior to the incident also, there was a quarrel c between the couple. On the fateful day, brother of the deceased (PW 1) and sisters of the dece~sed (PWs 3 and 4), who were living just across the road, heard the screams --1 of the deceased. They came to the house of the accused/ '• deceased and saw that the accused was coming out oUhe bathroom by scaling the wall. He had suffered burn D _.., injuries. PW-1 arranged for an autorickshaw, and accused "'"lo went to hospital with PW6. Thereafter, PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5 heard the screams of the deceased from the bathroom. Bathroom was bolted from inside, hence they broke open the door. They found the deceased burning and put off the E fire. On being asked by PW-1, deceased told him Jhat the accused had beaten her and had set her on fire by pouring kerosene on her. Thereafter she died. Trial court acquitted the accused. High Court, on appeal, convicted him. Hence, the present appeal. F Appellant-accused contended that conviction by relying on oral dying declaration was not correct; that it ~ was a case of self immolation and he suffered burn injuries ). while saving his wife, and that there was delay in lodging FIR and forwarding the same to the Magistrate. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G ~ HELD 1. It is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, keeping in view the well-established rule that the presumption of innocence H 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A with which the accused person starts in the trial court, continues even up to the appellate stage and that the ,I, L ~ appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal. [Para 11] [747-8-D] , Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra (1973) I 8 _..;- 2 SCC 793; Bishan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1974) 3 SCC ( 288; Ghurey Lal vs. State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450; Raj Narain vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2009) 14 (Addi.) SCR 755; Chikkarangaiah and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2009) 13 ~- c (Addi.) SCR 1182
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.