State of A.P. Vs. P.
Khaja Hussain [2009] INSC 612 (24 March 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1389 OF 2004 STATE
OF A.P. .. APPELLANT vs.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the judgment of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High
Court directing acquittal of the respondent who faced trial for alleged
commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short IPC). The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool had
found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
2.
According
to the prosecution version on 2/8/1999 the accused poured kerosene over his
wife Pinjari Hussain Bee (hereinafer referred to as the deceased) and set her
on fire. The prosecution version primarily restrained on two dying declarations
purported to have been recorded by the Magistrate and by a police official.
First dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate on 2/8/1999 on 11.30
a.m. which is Ex. P. 15. Later on another dying declaration Ex. P. 20 was
recorded by the Head Constable PW.12 after about one hour of the first dying
declaration.
The High Court
noticed that there was variation between the two dying declarations about the
manner in which the deceased was set on fire. In fact that the two dying
declarations can be reconciled with each other and since no other evidence was
available to connect accused with crime the conviction as recorded was held to
be not sustainable. Accordingly acquittal was directed.
3.
Learned
counsel for the appellant - State submitted that the variation between the two
dying declarations was not very significant and the High Court should not have
discarded the subsequent dying declaration on the ground that it was at
variance with the first dying declaration.
4.
There
is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.
5.
There
is no explanation as to why the second dying declaration was recorded by the
Head Constable of Police shortly after such a statement was recorded when the
dying declaration have already been recorded by the Magistrate.
It is not a case
where the variation between the two dying declarations is of trivial in nature.
The scenario was described in substantially different manner. The High Court
noted that the improvements were made to rationalise with the injuries
sustained by the deceased. Conclusions of the High Court do not have any
infirmity which warrant any interference.
6.
The
appeals stands dismissed.
..................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
...................J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New
Delhi,
April
15, 2009.
Back
