Acquittal upheld where inconsistent dying declarations and unreliable testimony failed to prove abetment.

Reshmabanu sustained burn injuries on 13 August 2009 and died seven days later.

Her initial statements to a doctor, the police and an Executive Magistrate described the burns as accidental and did not allege cruelty, harassment or dowry demands.

On 16 August 2009, after her family members arrived, she gave a further statement alleging ill-treatment by her husband and his relatives.

The accused were charged under Sections 498A, 306, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Sessions Court acquitted them, and the State appealed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused

Whether the trial court properly appreciated the prosecution evidence, and whether its acquittal judgment suffered from illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting appellate interference

The prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charged offences under IPC Sections 498A, 306, 323 and 114, read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; for abetment under Section 306, the essential ingredients of abetment under IPC Section 107 must be established

Under Section 378 CrPC, an appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must account for the reinforced presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, it should not disturb the acquittal

The Court relied on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169

The Court considered the deceased’s three statements made on the day of the incident, none of which mentioned cruelty, harassment or dowry demands, against the allegations made in her later statement on 16 August.

It also found the family witnesses’ accounts weakened by their admissions that they had not been in contact with the deceased for a prolonged period, and noted that their evidence did not establish any dowry demand.

In those circumstances, the prosecution had not proved the alleged cruelty or the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC; nor did the evidence justify disturbing the trial court’s assessment under the principles governing appeals against acquittal

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the acquittal was confirmed, the bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were ordered to be returned to the trial court.