Acquittal Upheld Where Inconsistent Dying Declarations and Contradictory Eye-Witness Testimony Created Reasonable Doubt

The State appealed against a judgment dated 25.01.2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, which acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 302, 323, 324, 504 r/w 114 of the IPC and the Bombay Police Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 22.12.1999, following an altercation regarding children playing, Accused No. 3 (respondent herein) poured kerosene on the deceased (Manjuben) and set her on fire.

The husband (P.W. 2) and another relative (P.W. 3) sustained burn injuries while allegedly attempting rescue.

The Trial Court acquitted all accused; the High Court previously confirmed the acquittal of Respondents 1, 2, and 4, restricting this appeal solely to the role of Accused No. 3.

1. Whether the oral testimony of P.W. 2 (husband) and the dying declarations (Exhs. 44 and 67) were reliable enough to reverse an order of acquittal?

2. Whether the dying declarations met the legal requirement of proving the declarant was in a "fit state of mind" at the time of recording?

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court’s findings if two reasonable views are possible?

The Court applied the principles of appellate review of acquittal, noting a "double presumption" of innocence in favor of the accused.

It relied on State of Rajasthan v. Ram Niwas and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, which mandate that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless the Trial Court's view is perverse or defies logic.

Regarding dying declarations, the Court applied Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and the principles in Smt. Laxmi v. Om Prakash, emphasizing that a medical certificate must not merely state "consciousness" but must certify a "fit state of mind" to narrate facts coherently.

The Court found significant contradictions in the evidence. While P.W. 2 claimed to be a witness, the deceased’s dying declaration (Exh. 44) stated her husband was not home during the incident.

P.W. 2 also failed to name the accused to medical officers initially, and his medical records (Exh. 50) indicated the injuries resulted from a stove blast, not an assault.

Regarding the dying declarations, the Court noted that Exh. 44 Bore a doctor’s note saying "conscious" but lacked certification of "fit state of mind," especially since subsequent Junagadh hospital records described the patient as "confused".

Furthermore, the recording times of the Executive Magistrate’s declaration (Exh. 44) and the police statement (Exh. 67) overlapped, casting doubt on their authenticity.

P.W. 3’s testimony further undermined the prosecution by suggesting the deceased immolated herself after losing her temper.

The Court concluded that the Trial Court’s findings were not perverse and adopted a view favorable to the accused. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of Accused No. 3 was confirmed.