Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2021 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1353 - SUPREME COURTMurder - mental cruelty and there was demand of dowry - offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC - reversal of acquittal and thereby convicting the appellant - HELD THAT:- It is observed, after following the decision of this Court in the case of KULDEEP SINGH VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. [1998 (12) TMI 627 - SUPREME COURT], that if a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. Applying the law laid down by this Court in various decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the findings recorded by the High Court, the High Court has specifically observed and held that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court discarding and/or not believing the dying declaration (Exhibit P5) is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court has given cogent reasons while believing dying declaration (Exhibit P5) and has also considered in detail what is stated in the later dying declaration (Exhibit P5), vis-à-vis, the medical evidence and the injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, as such, the High Court has not committed any error in reappreciating the entire evidence on record and thereafter interfering with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, having found the finding recorded by the learned trial Court perverse. A somewhat similar submission was made before this Court in the case of SANTOSH VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2015 (4) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT]. In the case before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the accused who poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze by matchstick that thereafter they tried to save the deceased by pouring water on her and therefore it was contended on behalf of the accused that by that conduct it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, after pouring kerosene on the deceased and thereafter setting her ablaze, thereafter merely because the accused might have tried to extinguish the fire will not take the case out of the clutches of clause fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC. The act of the accused pouring kerosene on the deceased and thereafter setting her ablaze by matchstick is imminently dangerous which, in all probability, will cause death. Therefore, the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Appeal dismissed.
|