Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Basappa Bailappa Ullagaddi

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2021CRL.A/100054/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal against acquittal of three accused in a Sessions Case arising out of a death by burns. The prosecution relied on the deceased's daughter as sole eyewitness, whose first statement described an accidental fire and who retracted it over a year later. Finding grave doubt and unproved panchanamas, the court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

State of Karnataka Vs Basappa Bailappa… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100054/2017

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY BAILHONGAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶12

... APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

¶14

AND:

¶15

BASAPPA BAILAPPA ULLAGADDI, AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAMPAGAON, TAL: BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.

¶16

MALLAPPA BAILAPPA ULLAGADDI, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAMPAGAON, TAL: BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI DISTRICT.

¶17

VIMALA MALLAPPA ULLAGADDI, AGE 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SAMPAGAON, TAL: BAILHONGAL,

¶18

Crl. A No.100054/2017

BELAGAVI DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENTS

(SMT. ANURADHA DESHPANDE, AMICUS CURIAE FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) & (2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 16.11.2015 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.102 OF 2014 BY THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING UP FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The State is on appeal challenging the Judgment of acquittal passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, dated 16.11.2015 in Sessions Case No.102/2014 arising out of Crime No.281/2012.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that:

¶28

2.1. Accused No.1 Basappa Ullagaddi and deceased Mallavva were married long ago, they had two

¶29

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶30

¶31

children, namely Bharati and Abhishek. After the marriage, both the deceased Mallavva and accused No.1, were living with the mother of the deceased i.e. P.W.6 in Mohare, accused No.1 was taking care of the properties and affairs of the maternal family of the deceased, upon the brothers of the deceased coming of age and the partition being effected in the family of accused No.1, they shifted to the house of the accused at Sampagavi, which comes within the limits of Bailhongal Police Station. There was constant friction between the deceased and her husband i.e. accused No.1, brother of accused No.1, who is accused No.2 and wife of accused No.2 i.e. accused No.3.

¶32

2.2. The deceased was always raising an issue as regards the partition not being effected and the amounts due to the deceased and accused No.1 not being given by accused Nos.2 and 3.

¶33

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶34

¶35

2.3. It is in this background, on 25.10.2012, there was an altercation between the deceased and accused No.3 as regards the collection of water from the common water point in the village. Later on, at 9.30 p.m. there was an altercation between the deceased and the accused persons in connection with the partition of the property and payment of monies towards the sugarcane crop sold. At that time, it is alleged that accused No.1 slapped the deceased and pushed her head against the wall, resulting in her unconsciousness, as also blood flowing from her nose and ears. Thereafter, on 26.10.2012 at about 1.00 a.m., when they found the deceased alive, they poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire.

¶36

2.4. It is alleged that C.W.11, Bharati-daughter of the deceased was the eyewitness to the incident. The accused has caused life threat to C.W.11 and

¶37

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶38

¶39

C.W.11 had not spoken the truth, it is thereafter on recording her statement that a charge-sheet was laid against the accused for the crime of committing murder of the deceased Mallavva and threatening the life of C.W.11 – Bharati, punishable under Sections 302, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity ‘IPC’).

¶40

The accused were heard and charges were framed, accused entered a plea of not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶41

In furtherance of the same, the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Bailhongal took cognizance of the offence against the accused, registered the case in in C.C.No.207/2014. Since the offence alleged against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter came to be committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Belagavi, S.C.No.102/2014 was registered and made over to FTC I, Belagavi and

¶42

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶43

¶44

later on to IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Belagavi.

¶45

The prosecution in order to prove its case, has examined in all 16 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.16), got marked 30 Exhibits i.e. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30 and 9 material objects i.e. MO-1 to MO-9.

¶46

The incriminating evidence against the accused was put across to the accused, the accused denied all the evidence against them, the statements of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, the accused however did not lead any evidence on their behalf.

¶47

After hearing the arguments of both sides the trial court acquitted the accused of the crimes alleged.

¶48

Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned Additional SPP for the appellant-State has submitted as under:

¶49

8.1. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts of the matter. There is more than enough

¶50

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶51

¶52

evidence on record to indicate that it is the accused who have committed the murder of the deceased. The witnesses have spoken about the altercation between the deceased and the accused. There is constant friction and quarrels as regards the property is not properly partitioned and the amounts due on account of the sale of sugarcane crop not having been paid. Therefore, the accused had a motive to cause the death of the deceased.

¶53

8.2. CW.11 is an eyewitness to the incident who has deposed about the manner in which the incident occurred, has clearly identified accused Nos.1 to 3 to be the cause of the death, who have committed the murder of the deceased.

¶54

8.3. CW.11 being the daughter of accused No.1 and the death having been caused of her mother Mallavva, the evidence of the daughter ought to have been taken into consideration by the trial

¶55

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶56

¶57

Court, inasmuch as the daughter would not depose against her father.

¶58

8.4. The postmortem report indicates that the death was caused due to asphyxia on account of the burns which are ante-mortem i.e. prior to the death caused in the house of accused No.1 and therefore, the accused not having explained the situation in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act as regard the facts which are to the special knowledge, the trial Court ought to have appreciated these and convicted the accused.

¶59

Notice had been issued to the respondents. Despite service, they did not enter appearance. Hence, this Court vide its order dated 29.05.2018 appointed Smt.Anuradha Deshpande as Amicus Curie to represent the respondents-accused.

¶60

Smt.Anuradha Deshpande, learned Amicus Curie in reply submitted that:

¶61

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶62

¶63

10.1. PWs.1 to 5 have not supported the case of the prosecution. They were treated as hostile but nothing much is elicited during the course of cross-examination to support the case of the prosecution.

¶64

10.2. When the complaint was filed by CW.1 at Ex.P.8, the complainant mother had suspected the role of the accused in the death of the deceased. However, at that point of time the statement given by CW.11-daughter Bharati indicated that the deceased slipped and fell down on the steps while holding a kerosene lantern. The kerosene spilt and the deceased caught fire, which statement came to be changed on 30.10.2013 after more than a year of the incident and this time CW.11/PW.7 implicated the accused in the murder of the deceased. The said statement was recorded after more than a year. By that time, CW.11/PW.7 was residing in the house of

¶65

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶66

¶67

CW.1/PW.6 and it is at the behest of CW.1/PW.6 that such a statement was given to support the complaint of CW.1/PW.6.

¶68

10.3. When such a belated statement was made and the said statement not being supported by any other evidence, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. Therefore, this Court ought not to intercede in the matter and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶69

We have gone through the entire file including all the evidence, deposition, cross-examination and the exhibits marked.

¶70

PW.1 is a panch witness who has turned hostile.

¶71

PW.2-Gadigeppa Bailappa Ullegaddi, who is the witness to the spot panchanama has stated that he has never seen the dead body of the deceased nor any injuries on her. He has further categorically stated that the police have not seized anything in his presence.

¶72

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶73

¶74

PW.3-Shivabasappa Veerabhadrappa Nandennanavar, who is an alleged witness to the inquest panchanama has denied that he has seen the dead body of the deceased. He states that the police have not seized anything in his presence.

¶75

PW.4-Shantavva Shivabasappa Nandennanavar, the alleged witness to the inquest panchanama has also stated that she has never seen the dead body of the deceased nor any injuries on her and that the police have not seized any articles in her presence.

¶76

PW.5-Ramalingappa Channabasappa Badennanavar, an alleged witness to the seizure panchanama has stated that when he had been to the Taluka Office, the police have taken his signature and nothing was seized in his presence.

¶77

PWs.1 to 5 were treated as hostile, cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Nothing was elicited from them during the course of the cross-examination to support the case of the prosecution.

¶78

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶79

¶80

PW.6-the complainant (mother of the deceased) has deposed that she knows the accused before the Court. PW6 had four children, namely Neelavva, Mallavva (deceased), Malagouda and Subhash. The marriage of Mallavva was performed with accused No.1. Accused No.2 is elder brother of accused No.1. Accused No.3 is the wife of accused No.2. From the wedding of accused No.1 and the deceased Mallavva, two children, Bharati and Abhishek were born.

¶81

After the marriage of Mallavva with accused No.1, both of them started living in the house of PW.6 in Mohare for a period of 4-5 years. Since accused No.1 got share in properties, accused No.1 and Mallavva started residing in the property allotted to them in Sampagavi, where they lived for 4-5 years. During the said period, accused Nos.2 and 3 were ill-treating the deceased with regard to the properties. The deceased had informed PW.6 that accused Nos.2 and 3 were not giving share to her husband. Hence, she was insisting

¶82

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶83

¶84

on accused No.1 husband to demand a share from accused Nos.2 and 3. 15 days prior to the incident, accused No.2 had received certain amounts out of the sale of sugarcane to the factory. Hence, the deceased Mallavva demanded the share from accused No.2 which was not given.

¶85

On 23.10.2012 her granddaughter Bharati CW.11/PW.7 informed her over the telephone that accused Nos.2 and 3 had quarrelled with the deceased Mallavva. On 25.10.2012 she received one more phone call from Bharati CW.11/PW.7 at about 9.00 p.m. and she informed that the accused were quarrelling with the deceased Mallavva.

¶86

On the same night she received a call around 1.30 a.m. from Sampagavi stating that her daughter Mallavva died due to burns. Hence, she along with other children and relatives travelled to Sampagavi and found the dead body of Mallavva in the house of accused No.1 with burn injuries, blood was oozing from her nose and

¶87

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶88

¶89

ear. There were injuries on the head and the backside. On seeing the same she came to a conclusion that the accused had killed Mallavva and set her on fire.

¶90

At her instruction CW.17/PW.9 wrote down a complaint as per Ex.P.8 and submitted the same to Bailhongal Police Station. She has further stated that she took her granddaughter Bharati to her house and that police had taken the photographs of the incident.

¶91

During the course of cross-examination, she has stated that she has never enquired with accused No.1 with regard to his income and maintenance of the family. She has admitted that accused No.1 never informed and told her that accused No.2 had not given a share in the property. She has stated that the houses of accused Nos.1 and 2 were abutting each other and there was a common roof. Accused Nos.2 and 3 had two sons and were of the same age as CW.11/PW.7. The children of accused No.1 were going to the house

¶92

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶93

¶94

of accused No.2 and the children of accused No.2 were coming to the house of accused No.1.

¶95

She has stated that she had given a she buffalo to accused No.1 about one year prior to the incident. That herself and Abhishek had gone to the house of accused No.1 two months prior to the incident but she could not meet accused No.1 on that date. She has further stated that whenever there was a school holiday CW.11/PW.7Bharati would come to her house and stay in the house of PW.6 during the vacations. She has further stated about her having given a mobile to CW.11/PW.7.

¶96

She has stated that she came to know that Mallavva died due to burn injuries. About 15 members including her two sons went to Sampagavi where many people had gathered. When they saw the dead body for the first time, it was lying in the cow shed. They were in the house till 10.30 a.m. Thereafter they went to Bailhongal and lodged a complaint which had been written by CW.17, who is the distant relative of PW.6.

¶97

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶98

¶99

She has denied her knowledge of the land allotted and or the price of the sugarcane. She has deposed that the people who had gathered there had informed her that Mallavva fell down on the step between the kitchen and the cow shed during night time while holding kerosene lamp, due to which she caught fire.

¶100

She has stated that both Bharati and Abhishek are residing with her and that even the she buffalo has been taken back by her.

¶101

PW.7/CW.11 is the daughter of the deceased and accused No.1 who had initially given a statement on 26.10.2012 and a further statement on 30.10.2013. Initially on 26.10.2012 she had stated that her mother fell down on the steps and caught fire. But subsequently, in her statement on 30.10.2013 she has retracted the same and she has stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 are responsible for the death of her mother.

¶102

In her chief-examination she stated that on 25.10.2012 at around 9.30 p.m. there was a quarrel between the

¶103

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶104

¶105

deceased and the accused, when accused No.1 slapped the deceased. At 11.30 p.m. accused Nos.2 and 3 asked accused No.1 whether accused No.1 would shut the mouth of the deceased or should they have to do it. At that time, accused No.1 held the neck of the deceased and hit her head to the wall, due to which blood started oozing from the nose and ear of the deceased. She lost consciousness and fell down. Afterwards, all the accused left the place and they came back again at 1.00 a.m. and noticing that the deceased was still alive decided that something should be done and accused No.1 brought a kerosene can and poured it on the deceased. Accused No.3 brought the matchbox and despite the resistance of CW.11/PW.7 he set the deceased ablaze. All the accused threatened her that she should not inform the same to anyone. Afterwards, she has stated that she has informed CW.1 over phone who came at 4.00 a.m. along with others. Since the accused were observing her she could not inform CW.1 of the truth of the matter and is only after

¶106

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶107

¶108

one year that she has given true statement to the police.

¶109

In the cross-examination she has stated that she does not know when her father and his brother started living separately and she does not know the extent of agricultural land allotted to her father. She has deposed about the deceased insisting on her fatheraccused No.1 to get property share. She has stated that her father was very affectionate towards her and insisted on her education. The relationship between the deceased and accused No.1 was cordial.

¶110

She has stated that on 25.10.2012 at about 9.30 p.m. both accused Nos.2 and 3 entered the house, when the deceased and PW.7 were in the kitchen. Accused Nos.2 and 3 asked why the deceased was quarrelling since they were giving money as and when demanded by the deceased. The deceased once again demanded the money, accused No.2 stated that he would not give any money. She has admitted that on 26.10.2012 she has

¶111

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶112

¶113

given a statement to the police saying that at that time the deceased in rage had hit herself against a stone. At that point of time, PW7 tried to comfort her.

¶114

She has however now stated that accused No.1 had at 11 pm dashed the head of her mother on the wall situate on the northern side, when she fell down, thinking that she was dead the accused left the place, they came back at 1.00 am when finding that the deceased was still alive poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.

¶115

At the time of setting fire to the deceased, she has stated that she was screaming but nobody came there. She has stated that the accused poured kerosene and lit fire on the deceased at 1.00 p.m. she was there at the time of pouring kerosene at a distance of four steps from her mother. She was frightened and tried her level best to avoid the incident by holding and falling on her mother. When the kerosene started to spread on her dress also, at that time accused No.1 removed

¶116

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶117

¶118

her from her mother and she fell down. She started screaming that the accused were killing her mother.

¶119

She has further stated that she had thrown a wet bedsheet on her burning mother, despite which her mother caught fire. She tried to pour water on her mother and that she was frightened. She has stated that when the police first came, she could not say the truth since the accused held a threat to her life. On 25.10.2012 she did not accompany CW.1 from Sampagavi to Mohare. She continued to stay at Sampagavi.

¶120

She has further stated that on 26.10.2012 the accused were arrested and she continued to remain in Sampagavi by herself preparing food. Neither CW.1 nor her uncles came to take her back from Sampagavi nor did she request her uncles and grandmother to take her. After accused No.1 obtained bail and returned home, she was preparing food for herself and accused No.1. Thereafter on being frightened accused No.1 will

¶121

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶122

¶123

do something to her life, after 4-5 days she left for Mohare to her grandmother’s house without informing accused No.1. Thereafter, she never visited the house of accused No.1. Since there was no fear for her in the house of CW.1, she revealed the true facts in her statement dated 30.10.2013. She has denied rest of the suggestions which have been put across to her.

¶124

PW.8/CW.9 is the brother of the deceased Mallavva. He has stated that at 9.30 p.m. on 25.10.2012 Bharati had talked to him over phone and informed him that there was a quarrel between the deceased and accused. At 2.00 a.m. he received a phone call from Sampagavi stating that Mallavva was dead, hence he along with CW.1 and 10 others went to Sampagavi at about 5.00 a.m. when they found the dead body of Mallavva in the house of accused No.1.

¶125

During the course of the cross-examination, he states that he does not know when the partition in the family of accused No.1 took place but he has admitted that

¶126

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶127

¶128

the deceased and accused No.1 after partition went and stayed in the house allotted to accused No.1. He states that he does not know about any dispute between the deceased and accused No.1. He has stated that the deceased Mallavva never informed him with regard to any quarrel or dispute with accused No.1. At 1.30 a.m. he has stated that CW.1 received a call but does not know who called her. He has denied the rest of the suggestions which have been put across.

¶129

PW.9/CW.17 had accompanied CW.1 and others to Sampagavi at 4.30 a.m. He has stated that he has found the dead body of Mallavva in the house of accused No.1, blood was oozing from the nose of the dead body. He had written the complaint as per Ex.P.8 which bears his signature at Ex.P.8(c).

¶130

During the cross-examination he stated that there were 5-6 people who left for Sampagavi. During the crossexamination he has denied the suggestions put to him.

¶131

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶132

¶133

PW.10 is the constable of Bailhongal Police Station who has received the MOs.1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 9 and delivered the same to FSL.

¶134

PW.11 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He has deposed that the body of the deceased was burnt and charred and the percentage of the burn was 90. There was a fracture of nasal bone, bleeding from the left nostril and rigor mortis were present, black particles of soot were present covering the lining of air passages in trachea and larynx. He has opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of burns (ante-mortem). He has issued the postmortem report which has been marked at Ex.P.13, which was conducted in the presence of Dr.Deepa. He has further stated that the injuries found on the dead body can also be due to accidental fire.

¶135

PW.12 is the PSI of Bailhongal Police Station, who registered the case in Crime No.281/2010 on the basis of the complaint given by CW.1 and investigated the

¶136

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶137

¶138

matter. He stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested on 08.11.2012.

¶139

PW.13 is the Assistant Engineer of PWD, Kittur who has drawn the sketch of the place of the incident.

¶140

PW.14 is the Circle Inspector of police, Bailhongal who upon receipt of information from PSI, Bailhongal (PW.12) took up further investigation. He has conducted the inquest mahazar of the dead body in the presence of CWs.2, 3 and 6. At that time, the dead body was near the place where the cattles were tied. The dead body was burnt from neck to waist. On the left shoulder, there was a burnt white colored blouse and there were three glass bangles on each hand. From waist to right knee and till left knee, there were burnt injuries. There was a half burnt petticoat and knicker on the dead body. Both the eyes were closed, blood was oozing from nose, mouth and ear. He has stated that at the time of recording inquest mahazar, the complainant has stated that the said act was

¶141

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶142

¶143

committed by all the three accused. After the inquest the body was sent to Government Hospital, Bailhongal for postmortem. Spot mahazar was conducted in the presence of CWs.2 and 3. MOs.5 to 10 were seized, etc. He has denied all the suggestions which have been put across during the course of cross-examination.

¶144

PW.15 took over the investigation form PW.14. He received the map at Ex.P.20, delivered the properties to FSL and collected the report.

¶145

PW.16 is another investigating officer, who has recorded the statements of the witnesses including the statement dated 30.10.2013 of PW.7 and laid the charge sheet.

¶146

It is in the background of the deposition of various witnesses that we have re-examined and reappreciated the facts on record to ascertain if the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused or not.

¶147

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶148

¶149

CW.11/PW.7 is the only alleged eyewitness to the incident. Initially when she gave a statement on 26.10.2012, she has stated that the deceased fell down on the steps and accidentally caught fire, which she came to know at 1 O’clock when she saw the fire. Subsequently in the statement dated 30.10.2013, she has stated that there was an altercation at 9.30 p.m. on 25.10.2012 and at 11.30 p.m. the accused had hit the head of the deceased to the wall due to which she fell down and lost consciousness. Thereafter, the accused left and on coming back at 1.00 a.m. finding the deceased alive, poured kerosene and set her on fire and she was threatened not to inform anybody. It is this evidence which has been relied on by the prosecution to drive home the point that the accused have committed the murder of the deceased.

¶150

PW.6 has only referred to what has been informed by PW.7 to her over phone as regards to fight which occurred on 25.10.2012. She has no personal

¶151

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶152

¶153

knowledge of the same. PW.6 has however stated that she is aware of the quarrels which were happening between the deceased and accused Nos.2 and 3.

¶154

PW.7 in her second statement and in her evidence has stated that when the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and they were seeking to set her on fire, she has intervened and tried to protect the deceased. She has further stated that after the deceased was set on fire, she poured water and wet bedsheet on the deceased in an attempt to douse the fire.

¶155

However, a perusal of the seizure memo indicates that no such bedsheet was seized. The deposition of the other witnesses to the spot mahazar and perusal of the spot mahazar does not indicate the presence of water at the place where the body was found. What is of further importance is that the second statement was given on 30.10.2013 after more than one year after the incident.

¶156

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶157

¶158

PW.7 during the course of her cross-examination has admitted that after the event the complaint was filed by PW.6 and she continued to reside in the house of accused No.1. It is rather surprising or indeed shocking that when a complaint is filed by the grandmother against the accused alleging that the accused has caused the murder of the deceased, PW.7-the daughter continued to reside with accused No.1. There was no attempt made by either the grandmother or the uncle who had visited the spot to take her away to safety if indeed they believed that the accused has caused the murder of the deceased.

¶159

PW.7 has herself categorically admitted that she had continued to reside in the house of accused and cook for herself and her father until his arrest and even after his release on bail. Though PW.7 has stated that the accused were arrested on 26.10.2012, the same is not correct, inasmuch as the arrest was only made on 08.11.2012. Therefore, from 26.10.2012 to 08.11.2012

¶160

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶161

¶162

PW.7 continued to reside in the house of accused No.1 and even thereafter when the accused were arrested and released on bail she continued to stay with accused No.1 and cook for him. The grandmother PW.6 and her paternal uncles did not make any attempts to take away PW.7 to their house. In these circumstances, there is grave and serious doubt raised in our mind as regards the second statement given by PW.7 on 30.10.2013, pursuant to which the charge sheet was filed against the accused.

¶163

The testimony of PW.7 eyewitness was recorded after PW.7 started residing with the complainant PW.6. When PW.7 was residing with her father for a long period of time she has stated that the death of the deceased was accidental. It is only after PW.7 started residing with PW.6 that she has stated that the death was homicidal and accused Nos.1 to 3 have caused the death of the deceased. The reason given by PW.7 that there was a threat held out to her cannot also be

¶164

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶165

¶166

believed. PW.7 had enough and ample opportunity to say the truth if at all it was the truth.

¶167

Furthermore, PW.7 is stated to have gone to the house of PW.6 in November-2012. The second statement was recorded on 30.10.2013. If indeed she had been frightened of the threat to her life, the said threat had ended as soon as PW.7 started residing with PW.6. She could have stated the truth thereafter which has not been done.

¶168

PWs.1 to 5 being the spot/inquest/seizure panchanamna witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution. The spot mahazar, inquest mahazar and the seizure mahazar have not been proven by the prosecution. The testimony of the sole eyewitness is in doubt. The prosecution has failed in establishing that there was a homicide/murder of the deceased Mallavva. The case put across by the defence during the course of the cross-examination which is same as the first statement given by PW.7 is plausible inasmuch

¶169

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶170

¶171

as at 1.00 a.m. the deceased using the kerosene lamp moved from the kitchen towards cattle shed in order to attend the natures call when she accidentally fell down broke her nose and the kerosene spilt and set her on fire.

¶172

The testimony of the PW.7 that at 1.00 a.m. accused Nos.1 to 3 poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire when PW.7 was screaming cannot be believed since no one came to the spot and when any body screams at 1.00 a.m. in the night in a village where the houses are very close to each other, the neighbours would have definitely heard the screams and either would have come to the rescue of the deceased and deposed about the screams, during the enquiry by the police.

¶173

In the above circumstances, when there is a grave and serious doubt as regards the manner in which the death of the deceased occurred, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of acquittal

¶174

Crl. A No.100054/2017

¶175

¶176

passed by the trial Court is proper and correct and does not require any interference at our hands. Hence, we pass the following;

¶177

Order

¶178

The appeal stands dismissed.

¶179

Smt.Anuradha Deshpande had been appointed as

¶180

the Amicus Curie in the present matter. She has rendered proper and effective assistance to this Court leading to passing of the above order. We place our appreciation on record for her services. We also direct the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to make payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as a nominal fee for bearing her expenses in the matter within a period of 15 days from today.

¶181

Sd/JUDGE

¶182

Sd/JUDGE

¶183

SVH/SH from para 3

State of Karnataka v. Basappa Bailappa Ullagaddi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State of Karnataka v. Basappa Bailappa Ullagaddi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasool Fakrusab Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Halappa Laxman Adinavar, Vs the State of Karnataka

State by Vs Vasudev S/O Fakirappa Doddamani

State of Karnataka Vs Anjini S/O Vaddara Ramesh

State of Karnataka Vs Dastgeer Gous Pheersab

H Govinda Naik Vs the State of Karnataka