Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the husband’s conviction after the High Court reversed his acquittal for cruelty and murder. Each conflicting dying declaration required independent assessment. The later declaration explained the earlier account of an accident as induced by threats to the children and was supported by medical and surrounding evidence. The trial court’s rejection of it was perverse. Subsequently attempting to extinguish the fire did not remove the deliberate burning from murder.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly reversed the acquittal.
- How conflicting dying declarations should be assessed.
- Whether a subsequent rescue attempt reduced the offence from murder.
Provisions considered
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Appellate reappraisal was justified where the acquittal rested on a perverse evaluation of material evidence. (¶ 5.2-6)
- Sections 300 fourthly and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Pouring kerosene and setting the deceased ablaze was imminently dangerous and constituted murder despite a subsequent attempt to extinguish the fire. (¶ 10)
Held
- An appellate court may reassess the entire evidence while respecting the strengthened presumption of innocence. Two reasonable views favour acquittal, but a perverse rejection of reliable material warrants interference. (¶ 5.2-6)
- Multiple dying declarations must each be evaluated on their own merits. The later declaration credibly explained the earlier account and matched the injuries and absence of a stove; the accidental-fire defence was rejected. (¶ 7-9)
- The proved deliberate burning fell within Section 300 fourthly. A subsequent effort to extinguish the flames did not change that conclusion on these facts. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court conviction for cruelty and murder upheld.