Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 970
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3152 OF 2025
KHAJA MOHAIDEEN & ANR. ... APPELLANT(S)
VS.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1
1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed
2 3
by the High Court in a revision petition filed by the complainant
4
whereby the High Court had set aside the order passed by the Trial
5
Court by which the appellants/accused were acquitted of the
charges. The High Court, vide impugned order, while setting aside
the order passed by the Trial Court had remitted the matter back to
the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
1
Dated 31.10.2018
2
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
3
Crl. R.C.(MD) No. 463 of 2008.
4
Dated 11.03.2008
5
Additional Sessions Judge, Periyakulam.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.08.12
18:25:46 IST
Reason:
1
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court could have only
examined glaring errors in the judgment of acquittal passed by the
Trial Court. Re-appreciation of the evidence could not be done. The
Trial Court, in the case in hand, after appreciating evidence led by
both the parties had come to a conclusion that prosecution had not
been able to make out any case against the appellants and acquittal
was ordered. He further submitted that the High Court had wrongly
observed that the dying declaration was not properly considered.
He has referred to the dying declaration of the deceased placed on
record and submitted that even if the dying declaration is
considered in its totality, still it does not make out a case against the
appellants. It can merely be said to be an unfortunate accident.
Even appellant No. 1 suffered burn injuries in the same accident
when the deceased had gone to the kitchen in the early hours of
morning to heat up the milk for the children. As is evident from the
dying declaration, while sleeping at night, since the gas regulator
was not closed and it remained open, the gas spread all over the
room and upon lighting the gas stove in the morning, the fire spread
over, causing burn injuries.
2
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2-complainant submitted that the Trial Court had totally mis-
directed itself in appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution.
The facts which are not even mentioned in the dying declaration, are
sought to be read. It does not suggest who had left the gas supply on
at night. It could have been the husband who wanted to kill the
deceased. There were instances of harassment of the wife
immediately prior to the incident. If the facts are taken in their
totality, it was a clear case made out by the prosecution for
conviction. The complainant being aggrieved, preferred revision
before the High Court. He further submitted that the complainant
was informed by the deceased about the harassment and the present
incident which he had stated in his examination-in-chief.
4. The High Court had rightly exercised its revisional
jurisdiction and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for
consideration afresh. There is no error in the impugned order
passed by the High Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State also submitted
that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the High
Court hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
3
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
7. It is a case in which First Information Report was
registered against the appellants/accused and charge-sheet was
filed. Appellant No.1/Accused No.1 was charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code
whereas the appellant No.2/Accused No.2 was charged for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 109 read with Section
306 of the IPC. The Trial Court, while considering the entire
evidence led by the prosecution and the stand taken by the defence,
opined that the accused were not guilty of the charges framed
against them.
8. The High Court, while setting aside the acquittal of the
appellants, had observed that the deceased had given dying
declaration before the doctor. However, without marking the same,
the Trial Court had acquitted the appellants/accused. While
referring to few judgments on the issue, the matter was remitted
back for consideration of the dying declaration, thereby setting
aside the acquittal.
4
9. The dying declaration has been placed on record. It was
stated by the deceased that in the fire incident which happened in
early morning on 14.06.2005, the deceased as well as her children
and husband sustained burn injuries. It happened as while sleeping
on the previous night the gas regulator was not properly closed as a
result of which all suffered burn injuries. From the aforesaid dying
declaration, nothing could be inferred to suggest that the deceased
raised any accusation against her husband, as is sought to be
suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent.
10. The material which is sought to be referred to by the
respondents to sustain the order passed by the High Court is, in
fact, of no value. It is the statement of the father of the deceased,
who stated that after his daughter suffered burn injuries, she spoke
to him the next day, and told him that the appellant No.1/husband of
the deceased would kill her and marry the appellant No.2/second
accused. As is evident from the scientific report dated 20.06.2005,
available on record as Annexure P-2, the cylinder and gas stove
were kept inside the bedroom and as a result of fire, the entire
family suffered injuries. The deceased being closest suffered
highest burn injuries.
5
11. For the reasons mentioned above, we find merit in the
present appeal, as it would be a futile exercise to refer the matter
back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. The impugned order
is accordingly set aside, and the acquittal of the appellants is
upheld. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
12. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
.........................................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
..........................................J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
August 12, 2025.
6