THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL (SR).No.894 of 2004 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State. 2. Appellant herein is the State and respondents 1 and 2 are accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively, in Sessions Case No.977 of 2000. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 30.09.2003, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, in Sessions Case No.977 of 2000, acquitting the respondent No.1-accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity “IPC”), and respondent No.2-accused No.2 of the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 302 read with 34 IPC, the State has preferred this Criminal Appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that A-1 is resident of Seebai Village and A-2, sister of A-1, is a resident of Madimakulapalli Village; that the deceased is the wife of A-1; that A-1 was addicted to alcohol and used to quarrel with the deceased and harass her unnecessarily and always used to beat her without any reason; that A-2 used to give money to A-1 and she also used to harass the deceased; that about three months prior to the date of the offence, A-1 tried to kill the deceased by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire; that the same could be pre-empted with the intervention of the villagers; that on 22.03.2000, at about 7.30 pm., while the deceased was in the house, A-1 came to the house in an inebriated condition, and abused the deceased in filthy language and, he, being instigated by A-2, tried to kill the deceased by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire; that at that point of time, the mother-in-law of the deceased was present, who was examined as P.W-1; that P.W-1 also sustained injuries when she tried to protect the deceased; that basing on a complaint given by the deceased, initially, a case was registered under Sections 307 and 109 IPC and that after receiving the death intimation of the deceased from the duty doctor, Government Hospital, Kalyandurg, the Inspector of Police altered the Section of law to that of 302 IPC, took up the investigation and after completing the necessary formalities filed the charge sheet. 5. When the charge under Section 302 IPC against A- 1 and under Sections 109 and 302 read with 34 IPC against A-2, were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-21, besides M.Os.1 to 3, on its behalf. On behalf of defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The trial Court, having appreciated the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, acquitted the accused of the offences with which they were charged. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 8. From a perusal of the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court, it could be seen that there are good number of variations in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and that apart, the whole thrust was on the two dying declarations - one recorded by the Magistrate and the other recorded by the Head Constable. The trial Court observed that though the contents of both the dying declarations are pointing out the guilt towards the accused, still it expressed serious doubts on those dying declarations on the ground that wherever the date was mentioned as “23.03.2000” the same was altered as “22.03.2000” by the Magistrate and the doctor. It has been pointed out by the trial Court further that it cannot be unusual or a doubtful factor if at one place such a correction was made, if some inadvertent mistake was noticed later, but at all places in both the dying declarations, the Magistrate and the doctor altered the dates from “23.03.2000” to “22.03.2000”. This is, obviously, an aspect which would have a substantial adverse effect on the case of the prosecution. The dying declaration, in normal course, has its own sanctity, but the same shall be beyond all reasonable doubt. In other words, the dying declaration should be totally at the volition of the maker of the said statement. If any doubt allegedly remains on record, such sanctity attached to the dying declaration would have to be subjected to a thorough scrutiny by the Court. 9. That is precisely what had happened in the present case. In both the dying declarations, on all the occasions, wherever the date “23.03.2000” occurred, it was altered as “22.03.2000” not only by the Magistrate but also by the doctor, who endorsed the dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable. This, on the very face of it, appears to be a serious aspect that has to be viewed as a strong and doubtful circumstance. 10. For the foregoing discussion and also having regard to the other inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, keeping in view the variations in the dates mentioned in the dying declarations, the trial Court had rightly arrived at the conclusion that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. 11. In our considered view, the trial Court had exercised its jurisdiction in an appropriate manner and with reasonable caution in appreciating the evidence on record. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity committed by the trial Court in appreciating the facts of the case. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _____________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 10th March 2010 dr