Summary and Analysis of Khaja Mohaideen & Anr. vs State of Tamil Nadu & Anr

1. Heading of the Judgment

Khaja Mohaideen & Anr. vs State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3152 of 2025)

Citation

Khaja Mohaideen & Anr. vs State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (2025) INSC 970 (Supreme Court of India).

2. Related Laws and Sections

• Indian Penal Code, 1860:
  Section 498A: Husband or relative subjecting a woman to cruelty.
  Section 306: Abetment of suicide.
  Section 109: Punishment for abetment (read with Section 306).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
  Revisional Jurisdiction (Sections 397–401): Limits on High Court’s power to reconsider evidence in acquittal appeals.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: Khaja Mohaideen (husband of the deceased) and another accused (likely a family member).
  Respondents: State of Tamil Nadu (prosecution) and the complainant (father of the deceased).

• Subject: Challenge to the High Court’s order setting aside the Trial Court’s acquittal and remanding the case for re-trial.

• Key Issues:
  Whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence.
  Whether the dying declaration and other evidence established guilt under Sections 498A/306 IPC.

• Outcome:
  Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the acquittal of the appellants.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background of the Case

• The deceased (wife of appellant No. 1) suffered fatal burn injuries in a fire incident on June 14, 2005, at her home. Her husband (appellant No. 1) and children also sustained burns.

• The prosecution alleged that the appellants harassed the deceased for dowry, leading to her death (framed as suicide or culpable homicide).

• The Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Periyakulam) acquitted the appellants (March 11, 2008), holding the incident was an accidental gas leak, not homicide or abetment of suicide.

• The complainant (deceased’s father) filed a revision petition before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, which set aside the acquittal (October 31, 2018) and remanded the case for re-trial, citing improper evaluation of the dying declaration.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. High Court’s Error in Revisional Jurisdiction:
   The High Court re-appreciated evidence (e.g., dying declaration), which is impermissible in revision against acquittal. Revisional power only allows correction of "glaring errors," not re-trial on merits.
   The Trial Court had already:
   Examined the dying declaration (recorded by a doctor), which stated:
   "The gas regulator was left open overnight. When the deceased lit the stove in the morning, the fire spread, causing accidental burns."
   Found no evidence implicating the appellants in harassment or abetment.

2. Flaws in Prosecution’s Case:
   The complainant’s testimony (that the deceased told him "my husband will kill me") was unreliable because:
   It contradicted the dying declaration.
   No corroborative evidence (e.g., prior police complaints) proved harassment.
   A scientific report (June 20, 2005) confirmed the gas cylinder was kept in the bedroom, supporting the accidental fire theory.

3. Dying Declaration’s Significance:
   The declaration exonerated the appellants by describing the incident as an accident. The High Court wrongly insisted on its "formal marking" as an exhibit, though it was part of the trial record.

Final Ruling

• The Supreme Court:
  Set aside the High Court’s remand order.
  Restored the Trial Court’s acquittal, holding:
  "The dying declaration and evidence prove an unfortunate accident, not homicide or abetment of suicide. Re-trial would be futile."

• Acquittal upheld for both appellants under Sections 498A/306 IPC.

Key Takeaway: The judgment reinforces that revisional courts cannot re-examine evidence in acquittal appeals unless there is a manifest error. The dying declaration, as the most credible evidence, must be given primacy when it absolves the accused.