Khaja Mohaideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

2025 INSC 970 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3152 OF 2025

KHAJA MOHAIDEEN & ANR. ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order1 passed

by the High Court2 in a revision petition3 filed by the complainant

whereby the High Court had set aside the order4 passed by the Trial

Court5 by which the appellants/accused were acquitted of the

charges. The High Court, vide impugned order, while setting aside

the order passed by the Trial Court had remitted the matter back to

the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

1 Dated 31.10.2018 Signature Not Verified 2 Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 3Crl. R.C.(MD) No. 463 of 2008.

2025.08.12 18:25:46 IST 4 Reason:

Dated 11.03.2008 5 Additional Sessions Judge, Periyakulam.

1

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in

exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court could have only

examined glaring errors in the judgment of acquittal passed by the

Trial Court. Re-appreciation of the evidence could not be done. The

Trial Court, in the case in hand, after appreciating evidence led by

both the parties had come to a conclusion that prosecution had not

been able to make out any case against the appellants and acquittal

was ordered. He further submitted that the High Court had wrongly

observed that the dying declaration was not properly considered.

He has referred to the dying declaration of the deceased placed on

record and submitted that even if the dying declaration is

considered in its totality, still it does not make out a case against the

appellants. It can merely be said to be an unfortunate accident.

Even appellant No. 1 suffered burn injuries in the same accident

when the deceased had gone to the kitchen in the early hours of

morning to heat up the milk for the children. As is evident from the

dying declaration, while sleeping at night, since the gas regulator

was not closed and it remained open, the gas spread all over the

room and upon lighting the gas stove in the morning, the fire spread

over, causing burn injuries.

2

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2-complainant submitted that the Trial Court had totally mis-

directed itself in appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution.

The facts which are not even mentioned in the dying declaration, are

sought to be read. It does not suggest who had left the gas supply on

at night. It could have been the husband who wanted to kill the

deceased. There were instances of harassment of the wife

immediately prior to the incident. If the facts are taken in their

totality, it was a clear case made out by the prosecution for

conviction. The complainant being aggrieved, preferred revision

before the High Court. He further submitted that the complainant

was informed by the deceased about the harassment and the present

incident which he had stated in his examination-in-chief.

4. The High Court had rightly exercised its revisional

jurisdiction and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for

consideration afresh. There is no error in the impugned order

passed by the High Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State also submitted

that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the High

Court hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

3

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record.

7. It is a case in which First Information Report was

registered against the appellants/accused and charge-sheet was

filed. Appellant No.1/Accused No.1 was charged for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code

whereas the appellant No.2/Accused No.2 was charged for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A and 109 read with Section

306 of the IPC. The Trial Court, while considering the entire

evidence led by the prosecution and the stand taken by the defence,

opined that the accused were not guilty of the charges framed

against them.

8. The High Court, while setting aside the acquittal of the

appellants, had observed that the deceased had given dying

declaration before the doctor. However, without marking the same,

the Trial Court had acquitted the appellants/accused. While

referring to few judgments on the issue, the matter was remitted

back for consideration of the dying declaration, thereby setting

aside the acquittal.

4

9. The dying declaration has been placed on record. It was

stated by the deceased that in the fire incident which happened in

early morning on 14.06.2005, the deceased as well as her children

and husband sustained burn injuries. It happened as while sleeping

on the previous night the gas regulator was not properly closed as a

result of which all suffered burn injuries. From the aforesaid dying

declaration, nothing could be inferred to suggest that the deceased

raised any accusation against her husband, as is sought to be

suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent.

10. The material which is sought to be referred to by the

respondents to sustain the order passed by the High Court is, in

fact, of no value. It is the statement of the father of the deceased,

who stated that after his daughter suffered burn injuries, she spoke

to him the next day, and told him that the appellant No.1/husband of

the deceased would kill her and marry the appellant No.2/second

accused. As is evident from the scientific report dated 20.06.2005,

available on record as Annexure P-2, the cylinder and gas stove

were kept inside the bedroom and as a result of fire, the entire

family suffered injuries. The deceased being closest suffered

highest burn injuries.

5

11. 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.

12. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

.........................................J. (RAJESH BINDAL)

..........................................J. (MANMOHAN)

NEW DELHI;

August 12, 2025.

6