Dismissed

State of Karnataka, v. Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2020CRL.A/100287/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeals against acquittal of a husband and mother-in-law of offences including dowry cruelty and murder by burning. Conviction rested solely on the deceased's police statement and dying declaration. Upholding the trial court, the High Court finds the two accounts inconsistent, the signatures doubtful, the recording delayed and uncorroborated, and dismisses the appeals.

What the court decided

AI extract

State of Karnataka, Vs Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

Dated this the 12^th day of August 2020

¶3

Present

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶7

Criminal Appeal No.100287 of 2016 C/w Criminal Appeal No.100288 of 2016 In Crl.A No.100287/2016

¶8

Between State of Karnataka, Represented by the Police Sub-Inspector, Audur Police Station, Haveri District, through the Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Advocate General Office, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. ...Appellant (By Sri. V.M.Banakar, Addl. State Public Prosecutor) And Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani, Age: 24 Years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: Uppunasi, Tq: Hangal, Dist: Haveri. ...Respondent (By Sri. Shivasai M. Patil, Advocate)

¶9

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Sections 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C., praying to grant special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.06.2016 passed by

¶10

¶11

the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Sessions Case No.27/2014, to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.06.2016 passed by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Sessions Case No.27/2014 and to convict the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶12

In Crl.A. No.100288/2016

¶13

Between State of Karnataka, Represented by the Police Sub-Inspector, Audur Police Station, Haveri District, through the Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Advocate General Office, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. ...Appellant (By Sri. V.M.Banakar, Addl. State Public Prosecutor) And Shantavva, W/o Hanumanthappa Doddamani, Age: 70 Years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: Uppunasi, Tq: Hangal, Dist: Haveri. ...Respondent (By Sri. Shivasai M. Patil, Advocate)

¶14

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C., praying to grant special leave to appeal and to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.06.2016 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Sessions Case No.65 of 2014 and to convict the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶15

¶16

These Criminal Appeals coming on for Hearing this day, B.M. SHYAM PRASAD., J, delivered the following:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

These appeals are filed impugning the common judgment dated 07.06.2016 in S.C. No.27 of 2014 and 65 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (for short, ‘the Sessions Court’.) The Sessions Court by this common impugned judgment dated 07.06.2016 has acquitted the respondents in these two cases of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 302 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).

¶19

The Audur Police, Haveri, registered first information in Crime No.52/2013 against Sri. Maruti Hanumanthappa Doddamani (the respondent in Crl.A. No.100287 of 2016), Smt. Shantavva (the respondent in Crl.A. No.100288 of 2016) and Sri. Ramesh Hanumanthappa Doddamani for offences punishable

¶20

¶21

under Section 498A, 307, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC after recording the statement of Smt. Anitha, Sri. Maruti Hanumanthappa Doddamani. After completion of the investigation, the Adur Police, Haveri filed charge sheet against the aforesaid for the offences under Sections 323, 498A, 302 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶22

The learned jurisdictional Magistrate ordered for splitting up of the case because Smt. Shantavva (the respondent in Crl. A. No.100288 of 2016) was absconding while committing the case insofar as Sri. Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani and Sri. Ramesh Hanumanthappa Doddamani for trial by the Sessions Court after ensuring compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). The case insofar as these persons is registered with the Sessions Court in S.C. No.27 of 2014.

¶23

The case insofar as Smt. Shantavva, after the

¶24

order for splitting up, was registered in C.C. No.139 of

¶25

¶26

2015 before the learned Magistrate who, on securing the presence of Smt. Shantavva, committed this case as well for trial by the Sessions Court after ensuring compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The case against Smt. Shantavva is registered before the Sessions Court in S.C. No.65 of 2014

¶27

Meanwhile, Sri. Ramesh Hanumanthappa

¶28

Doddamani was reported to be no more and the Sessions

¶29

Court has closed the case as against him as having abated. The Sessions Court, on hearing the learned counsel for the respondents in these appeals, and opining prima facie that there is material against the respondents for offences punishable under Section 323, 498A, 302 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, has framed charges against the respondents in these appeals for the said offences.

¶30

The respondents in these appeals for convenience are collectively referred to as “the

¶31

¶32

respondents” and individually by their names. The prosecution’s case against the respondents could be put in a nut shell as follows:

¶33

6.1 Smt. Shantavva is the mother of Sri. Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani and the deceased Ramesh Hanumanthappa Doddamani. Sri. Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani and the deceased Smt. Anitha were married in the year 2012, and after marriage they were living with Smt. Shantavva and the deceased Ramesh Hanumanthappa Doddamani. Sri. Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani and the aforesaid in-laws harassed Smt. Anitha stating she was not suited to their family, she should not stay with them and she must stay somewhere else. Her family members would call on her husband and the in-laws and counsel them against harassing and treating the deceased cruelly. But, the husband and in-laws did not stop either harassing or assaulting her.

¶34

¶35

6.2 On 17.05.2013, Smt. Anitha lost her uncle

¶36

and wanted to go to her maternal home to attend to his last rites. Sri Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani, her husband and the in-laws did not permit her and she had to stay back at home. She again requested with her husband and the in-laws on 18.05.2013, to permit her go to her maternal home to attend to her uncle’s last rites.

¶37

6.3 When she so requested her husband and her

¶38

in-laws dragged and restrained her in a room abusing her in filthy language. Her husband and her mother-in-law doused her with kerosene and set her on fire. The neighbours, including her uncle, Sri Fakirapa Doddamani, came to her rescue, put out the fire and rushed her in an ambulance to the District Hospital, Haveri.

¶39

The prosecution’s further case is that Smt.

¶40

Anitha suffered 60-65% burn injuries but, as certified by the Doctor at District Hospital, Haveri, she was fit to give

¶41

¶42

her statement. The police recorded her statement on 18.05.2013 between 8.30 and 9.30 p.m., and based on such statement FIR was registered in Crime No.52 of 2013. The Taluka Executive Magistrate also recorded Smt. Anitha’s declaration on the same day. Smt. Anitha could not survive the burn injuries and she died on 22.05.2013 around 2.30 a.m. As such, the respondents are guilty of the offences alleged against them.

¶43

The prosecution to prove the case against the

¶44

respondents has examined 23 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.23.

¶45

P.W.1 and P.W.2 : Sri. Devendrappa Siddappa Ramannavar and Sri Babujan Bankapur are the witnesses for drawing up of mahazar at place of occurrence and seizure of material objects - kerosene can and the deceased’s inner wear (M.O.1 and M.O.2) – from the place of occurrence.

¶46

P.W.3 : Sri. Shivu Pujar along with Smt. Chandrakala (P.W.6) is examined as a witness to the Inquest Report (Ex.P.3).

¶47

¶48

P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.9, P.W.10 P.W.11 and P.W.15 : Sri. Fakirrappa, Sri.Subhasappa, Sri Yallappa, Sri Marthandappa Chakapur, Sri Bheemappa and Sri. S.V.Parameshappa are the respondents’ neighbours.

¶49

P.W.7 and P.W.8 : Smt. Shantawwa and Sri Mariyappa Bhramarappa are the parents of the deceased Smt. Anitha.

¶50

P.W.6, P.W.12, P.W.13 and P.W.14: , Smt. Chandrakala, Smt. Geetha, Smt. Puttavva and Smt. Savitri are Smt. Anith’a sisters.

¶51

P.W.16 : Shri. Hanumanthappa A.S.I, Adur Police Station, who, upon receipt of intimation of Smt. Anitha being brought to the District Hospital, Haveri, calls upon Smt. Anitha and enquires about her fitness to give a statement and initiates necessary process for recording her statement.

¶52

P.W.17 Sri Hussainsab Nadaf, is a resident of Smt. Anitha’s maternal place.

¶53

¶54

P.W.19 : Dr. N.Muralidhar, is the Doctor at District Hospital, Haveri, in whose presence Smt. Anitha’s statement and declaration are recorded after he certified that she was fit to give such statement/declaration.

¶55

P.W.20 : K Shivalingu is the Taluka Executive Magistrate who has recorded Smt. Anitha’s declaration. Shri Halappa Nagavi, who was working as Taluka Executive Magistrate from 30.06.2014 i.e. after the death of Smt. Anitha is inadvertently examined as P.W.18, and he has stated he was not the Taluka Executive Magistrate at the relevant time .

¶56

P.W.21 : Sri. Victor Fernandes, is a retired Tahasildar who has drawn up the Inquest Report.

¶57

P.W.22 is the Investigating Officer.

¶58

P.W.23 : Sri Basavaraj Lamani, is the Police Sub-Inspector of Adur Police Station who has stated that he has recorded Smt. Anitha’s statement based on which FIR is registered.

¶59

¶60

The prosecution has relied upon Exs.P.1 to

¶61

P.39, which include the spot panchanama (Ex.P.1), photographs (Exs.P.2, 4 and 5), Inquest Report (Ex.P.3), PM Report (Ex.P.26), FSL Report (Ex.P.27), Requisition to

¶62

the Doctor to certify Smt. Anitha’s fitness to give statement (Ex.P.30), Requisition to the Taluka Executive Magistrate to record her statement (Ex.P.31), Smt. Anitha’s statement as recorded by the Tahasildar (Ex.P.36), Smt. Anitha’s statement as recorded by the PSI (Ex.P.34), FIR (Ex.P.38) and Hand Sketch of the place of occurrence (Ex.P.39). The prosecution, other than the aforesaid Exhibits, has also marked statements of witnesses who have turned hostile.

¶63

The Sessions Court on its own initiate has marked Smt. Anitha’s signature in the dying declaration (Ex P 36) as C.1(A) and C.1(B), and her name as written in the first part of the dying declaration as Ex.C.1. Smt. Anitha’s signature in her statement as recorded by the police is marked as Ex.P.34(b). The respondents have

¶64

¶65

not led in any oral evidence, nor have they marked any exhibit. The respondents in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the incriminating evidence against them.

¶66

The Sessions Court, observing that Smt. Anitha’s parents, her sisters, her neighbours in the matrimonial home and relatives from her maternal side as well as the panchas to the drawing up of the spot mahazar and seizure mahazars have turned hostile, has considered whether the prosecution is able to establish the respondents’ culpability for the offences charged against them based on Smt. Anitha’s statement (Ex.P.34) and dying declaration (Ex.P.36) and the testimonies of the official witnesses who have stated that such statement/declaration were recorded by them in their presence and it was certified that Smt. Anitha was in a position to voluntarily give a statement (Ex.P.34) and make a dying declaration (Ex.P.36).

¶67

¶68

The Sessions Court has concluded that it

¶69

would not be reasonable to rely upon either the statement (Ex.P.34) or the dying declaration (Ex.P.36) because of certain circumstances which create doubt about their genuineness. The Sessions Court has concluded that the statement (Ex.P.34) and the dying declaration (Ex.P.36) are doubtful because the ASI (P.W.16), the Doctor (P.W.19), the Taluka Executive Magistrate (P.W.20) and the PSI (P.W.23) have given different versions about the time when the statement and the dying declaration were recorded. There is delay in recording the statement and the dying declaration which is not adequately explained. The Doctor (P.W.19) and the Taluka Executive Magistrate (P.W.21) have admitted that there is obvious difference in Smt. Anitha’s signatures found in the statement (Ex.P.34) and the dying declaration (Ex.P.36). The signatures as found in the declaration (Ex.P.34) are not Smt. Anitha’s signatures.

¶70

¶71

The Sessions Court has also disbelieved the

¶72

prosecution’s case opining that in the statement (Ex.P.34) it is recorded that Smt. Anitha has stated that the neighbours shifted her to the District Hospital by an ambulance, but in the dying declaration (Ex.P.36), it is recorded that Smt. Anitha has stated that her husband, Smt. Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani, shifted her to the hospital by an ambulance; significantly, in the statement (Ex.P.34), it is recorded that Smt. Anitha has stated her husband and in-laws were unhappy because she was not suited for their family, but in the dying declaration (Ex.P.36), it is recorded that her mother-inlaw, Smt. Shantavva, was unhappy with her because she had married Sri. Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani against her wishes and therefore, her in-laws set her on fire.

¶73

The Sessions Court has opined that the official witnesses have admitted that the statement (Ex.P.34) and the dying declaration (Ex.P.36) were

¶74

¶75

recorded in the presence of Smt. Anitha’s family members; the fact that the statement/dying declaration were recorded in the relatives’ presence and with unexplained delay, creates doubt about the reliability of the statement and the declaration. The Sessions Court has finally concluded that if indeed Sri Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani, the husband, was guilty of dousing Smt. Anitha with kerosene and setting her on fire, he would not have shifted her to the hospital as mentioned in the dying declaration. This also creates doubt about the genuineness of both the statement (Ex.P.34) and the dying declaration (Ex.P.36).

¶76

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

¶77

argues in support of the appeal asserting that the Sessions Court has erred in disbelieving both the statement (Ex.P.34) and the dying declaration (Ex.P.36) because of certain minor contradictions in their evidence. The ASI (P.W.16), the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Haveri (P.W.19), the Taluka Executive Magistrate (P.W.20)

¶78

¶79

and the PSI (P.W.23) are public authorities and there would be no occasion for them to wrongly implicate either of the respondents. In fact, the settled law is that the Courts must presume that the public authorities will have acted honestly and conscientiously. The Sessions Court in disbelieving the evidence of these official witnesses as regards the statement (Ex.P.34) and the dying declaration (Ex.P.36) has committed an irregularity.

¶80

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor tries to emphasize that the testimony of each of these witnesses is consistent as regards Smt. Anitha being brought to the District Hospital in an ambulance; the ASI (P.W.16) reaching the hospital on receipt of intimation over wireless that Smt. Anitha was brought to the hospital with burn injuries; the ASI (P.W.16), after informing the PSI (P.W.23) – who was in a meeting in the Office of the Superintendent of Police – requesting the Doctor (P.W.19) to certify that Smt.Anitha was in a position to give a statement, the Doctor accordingly

¶81

¶82

certifying and the Taluka Executive Magistrate (P.W.20) recording Smt. Anitha declaration (Ex.P.36); meanwhile, PSI (P.W.23) having reached the hospital recorded her statement (Ex.P.34). In the circumstances of the case, the consistent testimony of these witnesses could not have been discarded either on the ground that there is delay in recording the statement/declaration or that the statement/declaration was recorded at the instance of relatives of Smt. Anitha.

¶83

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor also argues that the statement (Ex.P.34) and the declaration (Ex.P.36) are consistent in material aspects inasmuch as Smt. Anitha has stated that she was doused with kerosene and set on fire by her husband and in-laws in a matrimonial home. This consistent statement, coupled with the fact that the respondents have not offered any explanation, inculpate the respondents of the offences charged against them.

¶84

¶85

The learned counsel for the respondents

¶86

arguing in support of the impugned judgment canvassed that though each statement made by the deceased prior to her demise would partake the colour of a separate dying declaration as contemplated under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, and each of such statements must satisfy the test that it is voluntary not tainted by tutoring or animosity or is not a figment of declarant’s imagination. The circumstances pointed out by the Sessions Court viz ., the delay in recording the statements/declaration though Smt. Anitha was brought to the hospital admittedly at around 3:00 p.m. of 18.12.2013, the uncertainty about whether the statement (Ex.P.34) was recorded earlier or the declaration (Ex.P.36) and the discrepancy in the signature as found in Ex.P.36 and marked by the Sessions Court are circumstances which demonstrate that neither the statement (Ex.P.34) nor the dying declaration (Ex.P.36) are genuine. The statement (Ex.P.34) and the dying declaration (Ex.P.36)

¶87

¶88

are also not corroborated by other cogent and credible evidence. The fact that all the witnesses, except the official witnesses, have turned hostile demonstrates that there is no corroboration. As such, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

¶89

In view of the rival submissions, the question

¶90

that arises for consideration in these appeals is:

¶91

“ Whether the Sessions Court’s finding that neither Smt. Anitha’s statement as per Ex.P.34 /declaration as per Ex.P.36 nor the testimony of the material official witnesses viz., P.W.16, P.W.19, P.W.20 and P.W.23 inspire confidence and are not reliable suffer from any perversity or legal infirmit y”

¶92

The prosecution’s case is that Smt. Anitha, who was married to Sri Maruti Hanmanthappa Doddamani (the respondent in Crl.A. No.100287 of 2016), was doused with kerosene and set on fire at about 12.30

¶93

p.m. on 18.5.2013 by her husband, her mother-in-law (the respondent in Crl.A. No.100288 of 2016) and her

¶94

¶95

brother-in-law, Sri. Ramesh Hanumanthappa

¶96

Doddamani, who is now dead. The neighbours on hearing her scream rushed to her rescue and put out the fire, and they shifted her by an ambulance to the District Hospital, Haveri. Smt. Anitha was brought to this hospital with 60-65% burn injuries. Smt. Anitha was in a fit condition to give voluntary statement as certified by the doctor at District Hospital, Haveri. The concerned police personnel submitted a requisition to the Taluka Executive Magistrate to record a statement. The Taluka Executive Magistrate recorded Smt. Anitha’s statement at 7.30 p.m. on 18.05.2013. The PSI, who was also informed about Smt. Anitha being brought to the District Hospital with burn injuries, also reached the hospital and recorded her statement between 8.30 and 9.00 p.m. on 18.05.2013, and based on such statement FIR is registered.

¶97

The Prosecution also asserts that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Smt.

¶98

¶99

Anitha’s parents, her sisters, her acquaintances from her maternal place and neighbours of her matrimonial home. The Investigating Officer has conducted the spot mahazar and recovered a can of kerosene and a piece of innerwear worn by Smt. Anitha at the time of occurrence. Smt. Anitha died on 22.05.2013. The post-mortem report and the forensic analysis of kerosene and the piece of saree seized from the place of occurrence confirm that she was doused with kerosene and set on fire, and she died because of septicemia as a result of burn injuries.

¶100

The medical evidence establishes that Smt. Anitha died because of burn injuries. The respondents also do not dispute that Smt. Anitha died because of burn injuries. But the question is whether the respondents are responsible for causing burn injuries to Smt. Anitha resulting in her demise. The prosecution is handicapped because Smt. Anitha’s parents, sisters, her acquaintances and neighbhours have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution’s case. Even the

¶101

¶102

panch witnesses for drawing up of mahazar of the place of occurrence and recovery of material objects have turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution’s case hinges on the statement recorded by the PSI (P.W.23) as per Ex.P.34 and the declaration recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate (P.W.20) as per Ex.P.36. Thus, the prosecution’s case is based on multiple dying declarations.

¶103

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Bai Vs. State of Maharashtra¹ , while discussing the evidentiary value of a dying declaration, has said thus:

¶104

“It is clear from the above provision that the statement made by the deceased by way of a declaration is admissible in evidence under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. It is not in dispute that her statement relates to the cause of her death. In that event, it qualifies the criteria mentioned in Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. There is no particular form or procedure prescribed for recording a dying

¶105

1 (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 224

¶106

¶107

declaration nor it is required to be recorded only by a Magistrate. As a general rule, it is advisable to get the evidence of the declarant certified from a doctor. In appropriate cases, the satisfaction of the person recording the statement regarding the state of mind of the deceased would also be sufficient to hold that the deceased was in a position to make a statement. It is settled law that if the prosecution solely depends on the dying declaration, the normal rule is that the courts must exercise due care and caution to ensure genuineness of the dying declaration, keeping in mind that the accused had no opportunity to test the veracity of the statement of the deceased by cross-examination. As rightly observed by the High Court, the law does not insist upon the corroboration of dying declaration before it can be accepted. The insistence of corroboration to a dying declaration is only a rule of prudence. When the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is voluntary, not tainted by tutoring or animosity, and is not a product of the imagination of the declarant, in that event,

¶108

¶109

there is no impediment in convicting the accused on the basis of such dying declaration. When there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated and assess independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of certain variation in the other.”²

¶110

24. It follows from this exposition that Smt.

¶111

Anitha’s statement as per Ex.P.34 and the declaration as per Ex.P.36 must be assessed independently and on their own merits bearing in mind that because the prosecution solely depends on the dying declaration, this Court must exercise due care and caution in ensuring genuineness of this statement and declaration (Ex.P.34 and Ex.P.36). If the circumstances command corroboration for the statement/declaration (Ex.P.34 and Ex.P.36), evidence

¶112

2 This decision has been referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in Kashmira Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and others – AIR 2020 SC 652 .

¶113

¶114

could be assessed for such corroboration as a matter of prudence.

¶115

The Doctor, who is examined as P.W.19,

¶116

would be the first of the witnesses. This witness has stated that Smt. Anitha was brought to the District Hospital, Haveri between 2.30 and 3.00 p.m. of 18.05.2013 and she had 60-65% burn injuries as mentioned in the post-mortem report and she was administered medication. This witness has initially stated that the police recorded Smt. Anitha’s statement (Ex.P.34) at 3.30 p.m., but in the very next breath states the police recorded the statement (Ex.P.34) at 8.15 p.m. and later, on verifying the statement recorded by the police as per Ex.P.34, states that this statement (Ex.P.34) was recorded between 8.30 and 9.30 p.m. He is only categorical that the Taluka Executive Magistrate has recorded the Declaration (Ex.P.36) at 7:30 p.m.

¶117

¶118

The next witness would be the ASI (P.W.16).

¶119

He has stated in his chief-examination that he was informed over wireless about Smt. Anitha being brought to the District Hospital with burn injuries and he informing the superior officer, P.W.23 who was in a meeting in the office of the Superintendent of Police. In the cross-examination he states he received the information over wireless around 4.00 p.m. and informed the PSI (P.W.23) at around 4.15 p.m. and the PSI (P.W.23) reached the hospital around 6.00 p.m. only to correct himself immediately that PSI (P.W.23) could have reached the hospital between 7.00 and 7.15 p.m. He also states that Smt. Anitha could have been shown to him by the doctor at 6.15 p.m., and the PSI (P.W.23) recorded Smt. Anitha’s statement (Ex. P 34) between 8.30 and 9.00 p.m. He further states that the Taluka Executive Magistrate to whom a requisition was submitted at 7.00 p.m., reached the hospital between 7.20 and 7.30 p.m., and Smt. Anitha’s declaration (Ex.P.36) was recorded

¶120

¶121

until 7.35 p.m. by a clerk who had accompanied the Taluka Executive Magistrate.

¶122

The Taluka Executive Magistrate (P.W.20) has stated that he reached the District Hospital, Haveri by 7.30 p.m. and recorded the statement of Smt. Anitha between 7.30 and 8.00 p.m., and when the declaration (Ex.P.36) was recorded, he was accompanied by an assistant, Sri. Guttal. The PSI (P.W.23), who is the next crucial witness, has stated that he received intimation from the ASI around 7.30-7.45 p.m; he reached the hospital around 8.15 p.m; the doctor had certified that Smt. Anitha was in a condition to give statement voluntarily; he recorded Smt. Anitha’s declaration (Ex.P.36) between 8:30 and 9:00 and registered the FIR as per Ex. P 38.

¶123

There is inconsistency in the evidence of the

¶124

ASI (PW 16) and the PSI (P.W.23) as regards the time when statement (Ex.P.34) was recorded, but the evidence

¶125

¶126

is consistent that the Taluka Executive Magistrate (P.W.20) recorded Smt. Anitha’s declaration (Ex.P.36) about 7:30 PM on 18.5.2013 i.e., about four hours after she was brought to the hospital. It could be reasonably deduced that the declaration (Ex.P.36) attributed to Smt. Anitha as her voluntary statement is the first of the statements recorded. It will have to be now seen whether this declaration (Exhibit P.36) inspires confidence for this Court to decide whether the respondents’ culpability for the offences alleged against them could be based on it.

¶127

The Sessions Court in opining that the declaration (Exhibit.P.36) does not inculpate the

¶128

respondents beyond reasonable doubt has considered certain circumstances. Firstly, the police i.e., ASI (PW 16) is categorical that he was present when the Taluka Executive Magistrate (PW 20) recorded the declaration (Exhibit.P.36), but the Taluka Executive Magistrate has stated that none of the police personnel were present when he recorded the declaration. Secondly, it is the

¶129

¶130

prosecution’s case that Smt. Anitha affixed her signature to the declaration (Ex.P.36). The Sessions Court on comparison of the signatures – Ex.C.1(A) and C.1(B) – with the name entered (Ex.C.1), as permissible under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, has concluded that all three appear to be in similar style, and has opined that the scribe, who has filled in the details in the declaration (Ex.P.36) could himself have written the signature as per Ex.C.1(A) and C.1(B). This Court for reappreciation of the evidence has examined the signatures, and upon such re-appreciation, this Court will have to affirm the Session Court’s opinion and also observe that this would be a very serious circumstance affecting the very credibility of the declaration (Ex.P.36).

¶131

Significantly, the evidence is that Smt. Anitha was brought to the hospital around 3:00 PM and requisition to the Taluka Executive Magistrate to record the declaration is sent at 7:00 PM and the declaration (Ex.P.36) is recorded after 7:30 PM. There is no

¶132

¶133

explanation why the requisition to the Taluka Executive Magistrate is delayed. Though this itself cannot be significant, but when seen in conjunction with the circumstances mentioned above, creates further doubt about the credibility of the declaration (Ex.P.36). This Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, in the light of the Sessions Court’s discussion, is not persuaded to conclude that the Sessions Court’s finding that the declaration (Ex.P.36) does not inspire confidence suffers from any infirmity.

¶134

The next evidence that could be admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act is the statement of Smt. Anitha (Ex.P.34) as recorded by the PSI (P.W.23). As already mentioned, there is discrepancy insofar as the time when such statement was recorded apart from the question of delay in recording such statement. The doctor (P.W.19) has stated that the police could have recorded her statement in the afternoon around 3:30 PM only to change the version immediately

¶135

¶136

thereafter. The ASI (P.W.16) states that the PSI could have reached the District Hospital at around 6:15 PM while also stating that the PSI (P.W.23) reached the District Hospital between 7 and 7:15 PM. He, the ASI, was in the District Hospital by 4:00 PM and Smt. Anitha was shown to him by the doctor at 6:15 PM while also stating that he informed the PSI (P.W.23), who was in a meeting in the office of the Superintendent of police, about Smt. Anitha being brought to the hospital with burn injuries immediately thereafter and he personally verified whether she was in a position to speak. The statement (Ex.P.34) is recorded only between 8:30 and 9:00 PM. These contradictions in the evidence, without any proper explanation, not only create serious, and therefore reasonable, doubt about the time when the statement (Exhibit P 34) was recorded but also create reasonable doubt about the very genuineness of the statement.

¶137

¶138

Further, these circumstances also impel this

¶139

Court, as a matter of prudence, to see whether the prosecution’s case that Smt. Anitha in her

¶140

statement/declaration before her demise implicated the respondents stating that they had doused her with kerosene and set her on fire, the neighbours, upon hearing the screams, came to the house, they put out the fire and rushed her by an ambulance to the District Hospital, is corroborated.

¶141

statement/declaration of Smt. Anitha was recorded in the presence of her relatives/acquaintances but none of those who are examined as witnesses has supported the prosecution’s case. There is also contradiction in the statement (Ex.P.34) and the declaration (Ex.P.36) as regards the reason for the respondents to douse Smt. Anitha with kerosene and set her on fire as well as who brought her to the District Hospital.

¶142

¶143

In the declaration (Ex.P.34) it is stated that

¶144

the respondents would assault Smt. Anitha saying that she was not a suitable bride for the family, but in the declaration (Ex.P.36) it is stated Maruti Hanumanthappa Doddadami and her in-laws nurtured grudge against her because she had married Sri. Maruti Hanumanthappa Doddadami against the wishes of his family. In the declaration (Ex.P.34) it is stated that Maruti Hanumanthappa Doddadami shifted her to the District Hospital by an ambulance, but in the declaration (Ex.P.36) it is stated that the neighbours rushed her to the District Hospital by an ambulance. The witnesses to the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar have also not supported the prosecution’s case. As such, there is no corroboration.

¶145

For the foregoing, this Court concludes that the Sessions Court’s finding that neither Smt. Anitha’s statement as per Ex.P.34 to the police/ declaration as per Ex.P.36 nor the testimony of the material official

¶146

¶147

witnesses viz., P.W.16, P.W.19, P.W.20 and P.W.23 inspire confidence and are not reliable or trustworthy does not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity and the Sessions Court is justified in extending the benefit of reasonable doubt to the respondents while acquitting them. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed.

¶148

Sd/JUDGE

¶149

Sd/JUDGE

¶150

Kms

State of Karnataka, v. Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State of Karnataka, v. Maruthi Hanumanthappa Doddamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Manjunath Bommayya Naik

State of Karnataka, Vs Shivanand Mahadevappa Muragi

The State of Karnataka Vs Raju S/O Basavarajappa Bakkajji

Veeresh S/O Chandrashekharayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sharanabasava @ Sharanu S/O Siddappa Deginal

State of Karnataka, Vs Shantavva