Supreme Court Upholds Trial Acquittal, Sets Aside High Court's Revisional Remand in Domestic Fire Case

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan heard the appeal against an order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court which had, in revisional proceedings, set aside a trial court's acquittal of two accused and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioners challenged the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction and its direction to re-examine evidence including a dying declaration in a case arising from a fatal domestic fire.

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, held that the High Court had erred in remitting the matter for fresh consideration, and restored the trial court's acquittal. The Court observed that re-appreciation of evidence in revision was impermissible where the trial court had, after full appreciation, recorded acquittal and that the material placed before the High Court did not warrant upsetting that finding. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "For the reasons mentioned above, we find merit in the present appeal, as it would be a futile exercise to refer the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. The impugned order is accordingly set aside, and the acquittal of the appellants is upheld. The appeal is accordingly allowed." The Court further noted that "From the aforesaid dying declaration, nothing could be inferred to suggest that the deceased raised any accusation against her husband" and recorded the factual finding that the dying declaration indicated the gas regulator "was not properly closed" leading to the spread of gas and accidental fire.

Background The case arose from an FIR and charge-sheet in respect of a fire on 14.06.2005 in which the deceased and members of the family suffered burn injuries and the deceased later died. Accused No.1 was charged under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and Accused No.2 under Sections 498A and 109 read with Section 306 IPC. The Trial Court, after hearing prosecution and defence evidence, acquitted both accused by an order dated 11.03.2008. The complainant filed a revision petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (Crl. R.C.(MD) No. 463 of 2008). The High Court set aside the acquittal by its order dated 31.10.2018 and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, noting that a dying declaration recorded before a doctor had not been properly marked and considered by the Trial Court; the High Court referred to precedents on the proper treatment of dying declarations.

On appeal in this Court, the petitioners contended that the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, had transgressed the limited scope allowed for revisional interference and engaged in re‑appreciation of evidence. The State and complainant urged that the Trial Court had misdirected itself and that the prosecution case, including allegations of prior harassment and statements made to the deceased's father, supported remand for re-consideration. The Supreme Court examined the dying declaration placed on record, the scientific report showing the cylinder and gas stove inside the bedroom, and the father’s statement relied upon by the respondents. The Court found that the dying declaration did not contain any explicit accusation against the husband and that the additional material advanced before the High Court carried little corroborative value. The Court concluded that remitting the matter for fresh trial was futile in the facts of the case and therefore set aside the High Court order and upheld the Trial Court's acquittal. The appeal was allowed and the acquittal of the appellants was restored. No interim directions were recorded and no liberty was specified.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3152 of 2025 (2025 INSC 970) Case Title: Khaja Mohaideen & Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the reported judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the reported judgment]