Dowry death - Appeal - Whether solely on the ground that the High Court has not examined the reasons on which the order of acquittal was passed and convicted the accused by interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, the same is further required to be interfered with by the apex Court? – Even in the case where the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal interfered with the order of acquittal without specifically considering the reasons arrived at by the learned trial court and without specifically observing that the reasons are perverse, this Court can still maintain the order of conviction passed by the High Court, if this Court is satisfied itself that the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably unsustainable and the judgment of the appellate court is free from those infirmities -  It also emerges that the High Court is entitled to re¬appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion, however, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal solely on the ground on re¬appreciation of the entire evidence that two views are possible - IPC , Section 302. 2019 SCeJ 596

 

Dying declaration  - Dowry death –  There is a dying declaration given by the deceased which has been proved and supported by the independent witnesses, metropolitan magistrate, it has been established and proved by examining the medical officer and even the medical officer certified that the patient was conscious and coherent and fit state of mind to give the statement - Trial Court discarded the same on some minor contradictions/omissions and gave undue importance to the initial statement of the victim while giving the history to the doctor - However, the trial Court did not consider her explanation on the above giving in the dying declaration - Defence has miserably failed and proved that it was an accidental burns/death -  The appellant was last seen in the house and immediately on the occurrence of the incident he ran away - Approach of the trial Court was patently erroneous and the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable . 2019 SCeJ 596