The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Madras High Court order and upheld the acquittal of a man and his relative accused of abetting his wife’s suicide, observing that remanding the case for fresh consideration based on the available evidence would be a “futile exercise.” A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan, in the case of Khaja Mohaideen & Anr. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., held that the dying declaration of the deceased did not raise any accusation against the appellants and that the High Court erred in its revisional jurisdiction by ordering a retrial.
Case Background
The case originated from an incident on June 14, 2005, where a woman sustained fatal burn injuries. The prosecution charged her husband, Khaja Mohaideen (Appellant No. 1/Accused No. 1), under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A second individual (Appellant No. 2/Accused No. 2) was charged under Section 498A and Section 109 (punishment of abetment) read with Section 306 of the IPC.
The Trial Court, specifically the Additional Sessions Judge in Periyakulam, after evaluating the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence, acquitted the accused on March 11, 2008, concluding that they were not guilty of the charges framed against them.
Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant filed a criminal revision petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. On October 31, 2018, the High Court set aside the trial court’s acquittal order. The High Court observed that the trial court had acquitted the accused without properly considering the dying declaration made by the deceased before a doctor. Consequently, it remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The accused challenged this High Court order before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Submissions: The counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction, which is limited to examining “glaring errors” and does not permit a complete re-appreciation of evidence. They contended that the trial court had correctly acquitted the accused after a thorough assessment of the evidence.
Referring to the dying declaration, the appellants’ counsel submitted that even if considered in its entirety, it did not establish a case against them. The declaration described an “unfortunate accident” where a gas leak occurred overnight because the regulator was not closed properly. When the deceased went to the kitchen in the early morning to heat milk for her children and lit the stove, a fire spread, causing burn injuries to the entire family, including Appellant No. 1.
Respondents’ Submissions: Conversely, counsel for the complainant (Respondent No. 2) argued that the trial court had “totally mis-directed itself” in appreciating the evidence. They suggested that the dying declaration was misinterpreted and that it was possible the husband had intentionally left the gas supply on. The complainant also pointed to alleged instances of harassment of the deceased immediately before the incident. The counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu supported the High Court’s order, submitting that there was no error in remitting the case for a fresh trial.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments and perusing the record, focused its analysis on the dying declaration and the justification for the High Court’s remand order.
The bench noted the High Court’s primary reason for setting aside the acquittal was the trial court’s alleged failure to properly consider the dying declaration. However, upon examining the declaration, the Supreme Court found it did not support the prosecution’s case. The judgment states, “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.”
The Court explicitly concluded from this, “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.”
The Court also dismissed other material referred to by the respondents, particularly the statement of the deceased’s father, who claimed his daughter told him a day after the incident that her husband would kill her to marry the second accused. The Court deemed this material to be “of no value.”
Furthermore, the judgment referenced a scientific report dated June 20, 2005, which indicated that the gas cylinder and stove were kept inside the bedroom, and the fire resulted in injuries to the entire family, with the deceased suffering the most severe burns due to her proximity.
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court found that a remand was unnecessary. The bench stated, “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.”
In its final order dated August 12, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Madras High Court, and upheld the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.
