LexVIJAY MOHAN SINGH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
VIJAY MOHAN SINGH
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1656 of 2013)
APRIL 10, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 r/w. 34, 498-A, 304-B r/w. s.34 –
Prosecution case that appellant-accused (husband of victim-
deceased) poured kerosene on the victim and lit fire and ran away
from the spot – Consequent to which, victim sustained grievous burnt
injuries and later died in the hospital – Dying declaration of the
victim was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate – In dying
declaration victim categorically stated that appellant-accused burnt
her – Police filed charge sheet against the three accused persons
including appellant-accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 498-
A, 304-B, 302 r/w. s.34 of IPC and ss.3, 4 & 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act – Trial court acquitted all the accused – However,
the High Court set aside the order of acquittal of the appellant-
accused and held him guilty – On appeal, held: In the instant
case, there was a dying declaration given by the victim which was
proved and supported by the independent witnesses i.e. the
metropolitan magistrate and the medical officer – But the same was
discarded by the trial court on some minor contradictions/omissions
– On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, it was found that the
approach of the trial court was patently erroneous and the
conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable – Trial court
committed a patent error in discarding the dying declaration and
other material evidence – Therefore, the interference by the High
Court in the appeal against the acquittal of the appellant was
justified – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3, 4 and 6.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The dying declaration involving the appellant
came to be established and proved by the prosecution, by
examining the doctor as well as the metropolitan magistrate who
recorded the dying declaration. Despite the above overwhelming
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 994
994
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
995
evidence in the form of medical evidence as well as the dying
declaration and the deposition of the metropolitan magistrate,
the trial Court discarded the same on some minor contradictions/
omissions. It also appears from the judgment and order passed
by the trial Court that it gave undue importance to the initial
statement of the victim while giving the history to the doctor
when she was admitted and when she gave the history of accidental
burns while cooking in the kitchen. However, the trial Court did
not consider her explanation given in the dying declaration. Even
considering the surrounding circumstances and the medical
evidence and the other evidence, the defence has miserably failed
and proved that it was an accidental burns/death. The appellant
was last seen in the house and immediately on the occurrence of
the incident he ran away. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that
the approach of the trial Court was patently erroneous and the
conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable.
[Para 9][1007-F-H; 1008-A-B]
2. In the light of the above findings, it is required to be
considered, whether solely on the ground that the High Court
has not examined the reasons on which the order of acquittal was
passed and convicted the accused by interfering with the order
of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the same is further required
to be interfered with by this Court? [Para 10][1008-C]
3. Considering various Supreme Court decisions, it
emerges that even in the case where the High Court in an appeal
against the order of acquittal interfered with the order of acquittal
without specifically considering the reasons arrived at by the trial
court and without specifically observing that the reasons are
perverse, this Court can still maintain the order of conviction
passed by the High Court, if this Court is satisfied itself that the
approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably
unsustainable and the judgment of the appellate court is free from
those infirmities. It also emerges that the High Court is entitled
to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to
its own conclusion, however, the High Court would not be justified
in interfering with the order of acquittal solely on the ground on
VIJAY MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.