LexRAMESH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2016] 8 S.C.R. 936 RAMESH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 2526of2014) NOVEMBER 22, 2016 [A.K. SIKRI AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 34, 498-A - Dowry death - 100% burn injuries - Dying declaration - Four accused - Dying C declaration was recorded before the Magistrate after the doctor certifying fitness of the victim - Trial court did not believe the testimony of Magistrate on the ground that in his cross-examination he stated that he could not say whether the deceased was semi- conscious at the time of making statement - Trial court also relied . upon the testimony of PW-4 brother of deceased to the effect that D the appellant was with him at the time of incident - Acquittal by trial court - High Court relied upon the dying declaration and convicted the appellants - Appeal against conviction - Held: In view of the specific certification by the Doctor about the fitness of the deceased that she remained fit while recording the statement, E the mere fact that she had suffered 100% burns would not, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that the deceased was unconscious or that she was not in a proper state of mind to make a statement - Magistrate had taken due precautions and in/act medical officer remained present when the dying declaration was being recorded - There was no reason to discard the dying declaration - Moreover, F records show that it was appellant-husband who took the victim to the hospital and got her admitted and, therefore, version of PW-4 was wrongly accepted by trial court - High Court rightly held that PW-4 appeared to have been won over by appellant - No reason to interfere with the order of conviction. G Evidence: Dying declaration made to magistrate - Evidentiary H value, discussed. Code o.f Criminal Procedure, 197 3: s.378 - Appeal against order of acquittal - Scope of interference - Held: The appellate court is within its power to reappreciate or review the evidence 936 RAMESH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA on which the acquittal is based - On reconsideration of the evidence on record, if the appellate court finds the verdict of acquittal to be perverse or against the settled position of law, it is duly empowered to set aside the same - On the other hand, if the trial court had appreciated the evidence in right perspective and recorded the findings which are plausible and the view of the trial court does not suffer from perversity, simply because the appellate court comes to a different conclusion on the appreciation of the evidence on record, it will not substitute its findings to that of findings recorded by the trial court - All precautions were taken by concerned authorities before and while recording her statement - After the completion of her statement, the Doctor made an endorsement to the effect that the deceased remained fit during the recording of her statement and it is only thereafter the Magistrate (PW-11) appended his signature categorically stating that the statement recorded by him was true version of what the deceased had spoken and he had stated in unambiguous terms that she was fit to make statement and remained fit till her statement was recorded. Witnesses: Hostile witness - Peculiar behaviour of witnesses turning hostile - Situations when witnesses retract their statements before the court and turn hostile - Discussed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is undoubtedly narrower than the scope of appeal against conviction. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers upon the State a right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal. At the same time, sub-section (3) thereof mandates that such an appeal is not to be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Thus, before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. At the same time, while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence before it. However, this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to 937 A B c D E F G H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.