Appeal by the husband of the deceased against his conviction under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the burning death of his wife. The court upheld the conviction, holding the dying declaration reliable despite 90% burns and drawing an adverse inference from the husband's failure to explain the incident.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2181/2016
BETWEEN:
AGE 34 YEARS
COOLIE R/O. T. NULENUR VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 557 (PROCEEDINGS AGAINST APPELLANT NO.1 IS ABATED V/O. DT: 11.07.18)
2 . RANGAPPA ALIAS RANGASWAMY S/O SHIVAPPA AGE 42 YEARS COOLIE
R/O. T. NULENUR VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 557
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: SESHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: M.R.HARISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.2. V/O. DTD. 11.07.2018 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST APPELLANT NO.1. - ABATED)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOLALKERE POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526. REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR STATE/RESPONDENT)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.09.2016 AND SENTENCE DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.117/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 302 READ WITH 34 OF IPC; THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, THEY SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 READ WITH 34 OF IPC; THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.2,000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, THEY SHALL FURTHER UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A READ WITH 34 OF IPC. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT THEY BE ACQUITTED.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, B.VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal preferred by accused No.1 came to be dismissed as abated vide order dated 11.07.2018, on his death.
3
22.09.2016 made in S.C.No.117 of 2012 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), convicting appellant-accused No.2 - the husband of the deceased under the provisions of Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
Thippamma is the wife of accused No.2 and their marriage was solemnized about 8 years prior to the date of incident as per the custom and tradition and out of the wedlock, the deceased begotten two children. It is further case of the prosecution that while leading the marital life, accused No.1 being the brother of accused No.2 and accused No.2 being the
4
husband of the deceased, used to cause physical and mental harassment to the deceased to bring money from her parents and hand over the jewels/golden ornaments so as to fulfill their demands and to discharge their debt. When the things stood thus, on 01.05.2012, at about 10.00 p.m. when the deceased Thippamma was sleeping along with accused No.2 - Rangappa @ Rangaswamy being the husband, in her marital home situated at T.Nulenuru Village, Holalkere Taluk, accused No.1 being the brother of accused No.2 knocked the door. Accordingly, accused No.2 opened the door with an intention to co-operate with accused No.1 to commit the murder of the deceased. Accordingly, accused No.1 barged into the house and both the accused demanded the deceased to get money from her parents and to hand over the gold ornaments. When she protested, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her body and lit fire. Accused No.2 - the husband pretended to extinguish the fire from outside the house. The deceased sustained severe burn injuries and she was shifted to District Hospital, Chitradurga, later she has been shifted to Chigateri General Hospital, Davangere, but she succumbed to the burn injuries on 06.05.2012.
5
6
record, but have not led any evidence in support of their defence. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Sessions Judge framed two points for consideration.
7
Hospital, Davangere on 06.05.2012. Thereby, the accused persons committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under the provisions of Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them as stated above. Hence, the present appeal is filed. As already stated above, the appeal filed by accused No.1 came to be dismissed as abated by order dated 11.07.2018, on his death.
parties .
Kumar, learned counsel for accused No.2 contended with vehemence that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court convicting accused No.2 - the husband of the deceased is erroneous, contrary to the material on record and cannot be sustained. He would further contend that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and no separate complaint was filed from 01.05.2012 to 04.05.2012 till the statement of the deceased
8
was recorded by the jurisdictional police on 04.05.2012. Based on the statement of the injured, which subsequently became dying declaration, the jurisdictional police registered the case against accused Nos.1 and 2, hence, the same cannot be sustained. He would further contend that accused No.2 being the husband of the deceased has got admitted her to the hospital as admitted by PW5 - Dr.Sali Manjappa who has stated that the deceased had sustained 90% burns by the incident. The Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, when he himself has tried to protect his wife by taking her to the hospital immediately. The said material aspect has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Hence, the same cannot be sustained. He would further contend that Ex.P4 - dying declaration of the deceased clearly depicts that there is no overt act alleged against accused No.2. Accused No.1 died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal came to be abated. Therefore, sentencing accused No.2 to undergo imprisonment for life cannot be sustainable.
9
10
the prosecution. The Trial Court has erroneously convicted the accused and the same cannot be sustained. Further, the Trial Court erred in relying on Ex.P4 - dying declaration as there is serious doubt about affixing her LTM on Ex.P4 when she has sustained 90 to 95% burns. It is not explained by the prosecution as to whether she could give such a long statement giving full details of her marriage, children etc., while she was in such condition.
11
prosecution, which creates a serious doubt on the entire prosecution case itself. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal.
Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State, while justifying the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence contended that as per Ex.P4 - dying declaration, the deceased has given her statement in the presence of PW6 - Dr.Rangaswamy and PW9 - Manjanna, the Sub Inspector of Police, stating that on 01.05.2012 at about 10.00 p.m., while she was sleeping along with her husband, accused No.1 knocked the door and accused No.2 opened the door and allowed him to enter the house. Both of them demanded dowry and when she refused, accused No.1 sent accused No.2 out of the house for watch and ward and poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. Thereby, both the accused persons committed the murder of the deceased as rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge.
12
stated on oath that when the statement of the injured was recorded, she was fully conscious to give her statement and able to understand all the questions put to her and the injured was well conversant to the time, place and identifying the persons. Accordingly, he has issued fitness certificate as per Ex.P3 and has signed Ex.P4 - statement of the deceased (dying declaration). In the cross examination, nothing has been elicited in the evidence of PW6, thereby, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He would further contend that though it is alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is delay of 4 days in filing the complaint, it is submitted that the incident had occurred on 01.05.2012. She was shifted to the District Hospital, Chitradurga on 02.05.2012 and thereafter she was shifted to Chigateri General Hospital, Davangere and on 04.05.2012 at 11.45 a.m., the doctor examined the deceased and confirmed that she was conscious and was able to understand the questions put to her and she was in sound mental condition to give cogent answers to the questions put to her. Accordingly, PW9 - the Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statement of deceased. Thereby, the
13
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt about the involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the homicidal death of the deceased. The Trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentences. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
"Whether accused No.2 has made out any grounds for interference with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge under the provisions of Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentences, in the facts and circumstances of the case?”
14
and perused the entire material on record including the original records carefully.
15
deceased to get money from her parents house and hand over the gold ornaments. When she protested, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her body and lit fire. Though accused No.2 was standing outside the house, he pretended to shout and extinguish the fire. She sustained burn injuries and thereafter accused No.2 shifted the deceased to District Hospital, Chitradurga and from there, she was shifted to Chigateri General Hospital, Davangere for further treatment, thereby, both the accused are involved in the said incident. Accordingly, the jurisdictional police registered the case on 04.05.2012 at about 11.45 a.m. in Crime No.192 of 2012 under the provisions of Sections 498A and 307 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. After the death of the deceased on 06.05.2012, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet under Section 302 of IPC.
16
accused No.2. He is the permanent resident of T.Nulenuru Village, Holalkere Taluk. Accused No.1 is the brother of accused No.2. About 2 years back, the police came to the spot i.e., to the house of accused No.2 and drew Ex.P1 - Spot Mahazar and recovered MO1 - kerosene can in his presence. He has signed the mahazar and supported the case of prosecution.
(ii) PW2 - Thimmanna, being the witness to Ex.P2 - inquest mahazar deposes that he know accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased. He is the brother of the deceased. He has stated that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused No.2 about 8 years back and the incident took place about 2 years back in the house of accused No.2. She was taken to Chigateri General Hospital, Davangere with a history of burn injuries. Later, she died in the hospital. He has supported the case of prosecution. Though lengthy cross examination was conducted, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW2. In fact, he has stated in the cross examination that he heard about the incident from his aunt. Later, he went to the hospital and saw burn injuries on the body of deceased.
(iii)
PW3 - Thippeswamy, being the elder brother of deceased has deposed that he know accused Nos.1 and 2 and the marriage of his sister was solemnized
17
about 8 years back prior to the date of incident. On hearing the phone message, he went to Chigateri General Hospital, Davangere, wherein his sister had died at the Hospital. Ex.P2 - inquest mahazar was drawn in his presence. He was also cross examined by the advocate for accused, but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW3. In the cross examination, he has stated that the police has recorded the statement and that he has attested his signature on Ex.P2 - inquest mahazar. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
(iv) PW4 - Thippeswamy, being the father of deceased has deposed that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused No.2 and in the wedlock, she has given birth to two children; a male and female respectively. He further deposed that while the deceased was leading marital life, accused Nos.1 and 2 used to pick up quarrel with the deceased demanding money. Whenever he visits the house of accused persons, he used to advise the accused persons, but in spite of that, they continued to give torture, harassment to the deceased. On the date of incident, on hearing the news, he had been to District Hospital, Chitradurga and found the burn injuries on the body of deceased. As she had sustained burn injuries, she was shifted to Chigateri General Hospital, Davangere. The doctor provided treatment for
18
more than 3 days, but she succumbed to the injuries on 06.05.2012. He was cross examined at length by the counsel for accused. In the cross examination, the advocate for accused has taken a new contention that accused No.1 was residing separately and he was not present at the house when the incident took place. In order to prove the said fact, defence has not produced any substantiate document to prove that accused No.1 was residing separately. The witness stated that in fact, on the date of incident, accused No.1 knocked the door and accused No.2 opened the door allowing his brother to pour kerosene and set fire on the body of deceased. It was both accused Nos.1 and 2 had common intention to kill the deceased and accused No.2 has very much cooperated accused No.1. When the death has taken place in the house of accused No.2, the male members of the family has to explain as to how the incident has taken place. Instead of explaining the said fact, the accused persons tried to conceal the fact of murder by setting fire on the body of the deceased. Thereby, he supports the case of prosecution.
(v)
PW5 - Dr.Sali Manjappa has stated in his examination in chief that on 02.05.2012, the injured was brought to the hospital at 12.15 hours in the night to District Hospital, Chitradurga with a
19
history of accidental burns at about 8.30 p.m. on 01.05.2012. The injured was brought by her husband to the hospital for treatment and he noticed that the injured had sustained 90% burn injuries. Accordingly, he gave first aid treatment to her and thereafter she has been shifted to Chigateri General Hospital, Davangere for further treatment. In the cross examination, he admitted that the deceased was in semi-drowsy condition but was able to speak. He denied the suggestion that he has not given treatment to the deceased on 02.05.2012.
(vi) PW6 - Dr.Rangaswamy, has deposed that he has been working as Senior Surgeon, Chigateri General Hospital, Davangere. He has further deposed that on 04.05.2012 he has been called by Holalkere Police and in his presence, the police have recorded the dying declaration of injured Thippamma - the wife of accused No.2. The injured was fully conscious to give her statement. The injured mother and brother were also present. The injured was able to understand all the questions put by him. The injured was well oriented to place, time and the identification of the persons. He has issued Ex.P3 - fitness certificate and has marked his signature which is marked as Ex.P3(a). He has also seen the statement given by the victim and it is marked as Ex.P4 and his signature is marked as per
20
Ex.P4(a). Though in the cross examination, it is admitted that at the time of recording the statement, which became dying declaration later, Tahsildar was not present, but it was recorded by PW9 - the Sub Inspector of Police. He came to know that she has suffered burn injuries to the extent of 60 to 70%. He denied the suggestion that because of the burn injuries, the deceased was unconscious and she was unable to give the statement as stated by him. She was able to speak and disclose the facts. Accordingly, her statement has been recorded. He denied the suggestion that she was unable to affix LTM. He further denied the suggestion that because of sedative injection, she was drowsy and unable to speak. He also denied the suggestion that Ex.P3 - fitness certificate was issued at the instance of police and Ex.P4 dying declaration has been made recorded by the police. He also denied that it is false to suggest that she was not in a fit condition at the time of giving statement. He supported the case of prosecution.
(vii) PW7 - Dr.Bharathi who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased has deposed that as per the requisition of Holalkere police, she has conducted post mortem over the body between 5.00 to 8.30 p.m. She noticed the findings of the dead body, a female dead body lying in supine position, aged 30 years, moderately built and
21
nourished. She further deposed that on dissection of the dead body, she noticed that skull, head, brain are intact. Lungs are intact, cut section of lungs purelent discharge present, stomach contains 200 ml of liquid food, large intestine contains fecal matters and gas. Liver intact and cut section shows purelent and discharge. Both the kidney intact and cut section purelent and discharge. Urinary bladder intact and empty. Uterus female reproductive organs intact and normal. She has opined that the cause of death was due to septicaemia shock as a result of superficial to deep burns sustained during her life time. Accordingly, she issued post mortem report as per Ex.P5. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to disprove the post mortem report issued by her. Thereby, she has supported the case of prosecution.
(viii) PW8 - Thippeswamy is the brother of the deceased. He is a formal witness. He has stated about the illtreatment caused by accused Nos.1 and 2 and he came to know that the deceased died in Chigateri General Hospital. He has supported the case of prosecution.
(ix) PW9 - Manjanna is the Sub Inspector of Police. He has deposed that on 04.05.2012 while he was on duty at Chigateri General Hospital, Davangere, he came to know that Smt.Thippamma was admitted to the hospital. Accordingly, he visited the hospital
22
and met the deceased at that time, PW6 - Dr.Rangaswamy was present. He has granted permission and issued Ex.P3 - fitness certificate. Accordingly, in his presence, the statement of the deceased was recorded as per Ex.P4, which later became dying declaration. He also video recorded the statement as per Ex.P6 - CD and based on the statement of the deceased, he registered FIR as per Ex.P7 in Crime No.192 of 2012. He inspected the spot on 05.05.2012 and drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P1 and recovered the kerosene can - MO1 and marked it as PF No.67/2012 as per Ex.P8. He also drew the sketch of scene of occurrence as per Ex.P9. After the deceased died on 06.05.2012, he inserted Section 302 of IPC in Crime No.192 of 2012 and sent requisition to the Court which is marked as per Ex.P10 and also marked the intimation sent by Davangere Police Station as per Ex.P11 and also the photos of the deceased is marked as per Exs.P12 to 15. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve that he has not recorded any statement.
(x) PW10 - Sreedhara is the Circle Inspector of Police. He has deposed that he is working as Circle Inspector of Police from 2011 to 2013 and on 06.05.2012, he has taken further investigation in Crime No.192 of 2012 from PW9 - Manjanna. He further deposed that he has been to Chigateri
23
General Hospital and found the dead body of deceased and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of witnesses. He also recorded the statement of PW4 and CW8 and forwarded the requisition to the concerned Medical Officer to conduct post mortem. Accordingly, PW7 - Dr.Bharathi, conducted the post mortem and gave report as per Ex.P5. He also recorded the statement of other witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Nothing has been denied in the cross examination to disbelieve the statement of Investigating Officer.
Based on the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict and sentence accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of IPC.
24
mental state of mind. As could be seen from Ex.P3 - fitness certificate issued by PW6 - Dr.Rangaswamy, the condition of the patient was good and she was fully conscious and was able to speak, understand and give cogent answers to the questions put to her. The certificate was issued at 11.45 a.m. and the declaration was recorded by PW9 - Manjanna, the Sub Inspector of Police at 11.45 a.m. only and registered the case against the accused.
25
hospital. She has also stated to take action against accused Nos.1 and 2 who poured kerosene and lit fire on her.
26
27
naturally PW4 - being the father will always take initiative to ensure the protection of his daughter for giving proper treatment. Accused No.2 - being the husband who was with the deceased should have lodged the complaint to the jurisdictional police and he cannot take advantage of his own wrong and blame the prosecution. It is accused Nos.1 and 2 who conspired and demanded money and jewels and made her to death on the unfortunate day by pouring kerosene and litting fire. Thereby, both the accused had common intention to cause the murder of the deceased.
28
Inspector of Police has recorded the statement of the deceased as per Ex.P4, which later became dying declaration. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of the doctor to disbelieve his version. There was no impediment to record the statement of the deceased by PW9 in the presence of PW6. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death was due to septicaemia shock as a result of superficial to deep burns which are ante-mortem in nature. There are absolutely no reasons to reject Ex.P4 - the dying declaration, which can base the conviction of the accused as it is supported by strong circumstances as discussed above, including the unexplained conduct of the appellant.
“21. For what has been noticed hereinabove, some of the principles relating to recording of dying declaration and its admissibility and reliability could be usefully summed up as under:—
1 AIR 2020 SC 476
29
i) A dying declaration could be the sole basis of conviction even without corroboration, if it inspires confidence of the Court.
ii) The Court should be satisfied that the declarant was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement; and that it was a voluntary statement, which was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.
iii) Where a dying declaration is suspicious or is suffering from any infirmity such as want of fit state of mind of the declarant or of like nature, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
iv) When the eye-witnesses affirm that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the statement, the medical opinion cannot prevail.
v) The law does not provide as to who could record dying declaration nor there is any prescribed format or procedure for the same but the person recording dying declaration must be satisfied that the maker is in a fit state of mind and is capable of making the statement
30
vi) Although presence of a Magistrate is not absolutely necessary for recording of a dying declaration but to ensure authenticity and credibility, it is expected that a Magistrate be requested to record such dying declaration and/or attestation be obtained from other persons present at the time of recording the dying declaration.
vii) As regards a burns case, the percentage and degree of burns would not, by itself, be decisive of the credibility of dying declaration; and the decisive factor would be the quality of evidence about the fit and conscious state of the declarant to make the statement.
viii) If after careful scrutiny, the Court finds the statement placed as dying declaration to be voluntary and also finds it coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in recording conviction on its basis even without corroboration.”
“23.2. It is also noteworthy that in Ex.PW8/A, the doctor PW-8 Sushma mentioned all other features relating to the medical condition of the patient and recorded that he had suffered ‘burn injuries involving whole of the body surface area-
31
100% deep burn’. However and even while mentioning that the general condition of the patient was ‘critical’, it was also recorded in Ex.PW-8/A that the patient was ‘conscious, oriented’. It is but clear from the contents of Ex.PW-8/A about the condition of the victim Sher Singh that though the doctor found him to be in critical condition with 100% deep burns yet, he was conscious and oriented. In other words, he was neither unconscious nor disoriented. In yet other words, he was neither insensate nor confused. Such significant noting about the mental faculties of the victim at the time of giving out the narratives to the doctor makes it clear that even when he was suffering from the agony of 100% deep burns, he was not in an unfit state of mind; and there appears no reason to disbelieve his first version as recorded in Ex. PW8/A."
The Hon’ble Supreme Court after holding the contention that the deceased has sustained 100% burns, yet she was conscious and mentally fit. Admittedly, in the present case, the evidence of PW9 - Manjanna, the Sub Inspector of Police and PW6 - Dr.Rangaswamy, have specifically stated on oath that she was in fit state of mind and fully conscious and the
32
same is supported by Ex.P3. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that she was not conscious as she had sustained 90% burn injuries cannot be accepted.
"11. The aforesaid factors leave us satisfied that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish a case for a homicidal death inside the house where the deceased resided with the
2 (2019) 10 SCC 211
33
appellant alone. The conduct of the appellant, in the aforesaid background, now becomes important. If the deceased had committed suicide, we find it strange that the appellant laid her body on the floor after bringing her down but did not bother to inform anyone living near him much less the parents of the deceased. There is no evidence that the information was conveyed to the family members of the deceased by the appellant or at the behest of the appellant. The appellant was also not found to be at home when her family members came the next morning. The appellant offered no defence whatsoever with regard to his absence the whole night and on the contrary PW3 attempted to build up a case of alibi on behalf of the appellant, when he himself had taken no such defence under Section 313, Cr.P.C.
13. In the circumstances, the onus clearly shifted on the appellant to explain the circumstances and the manner in which the deceased met a homicidal death in the matrimonial home as it was a fact specifically and exclusive to his knowledge. It is not the case of the appellant that there had been an intruder in the house at night. In Hanumant and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, it was observed:
34
“10. …..It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused….”
35
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan3 , wherein, at para 11 held as under:
"11. No explanation is forthcoming from the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to when he parted the company of the victim. Also, no explanation is there as to what happened after getting the chocolates for the victim. The silence on the part of the accused, in such a matter wherein he is expected to come out with an explanation, leads to an adverse inference against the accused."
3 (2019) 14 SCC 438
36
declaration, the evidence of PWs.4, 6 and 9 supports the case of prosecution. Apart from Ex.P4 - dying declaration, the other material evidence clearly proves the involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the homicidal death of the deceased. Thereby, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.2 has treated the deceased with cruelty by demanding cash and jewelry and in furtherance of common intention with accused No.1 to kill the deceased, poured kerosene and set her ablaze. Thereby, she has suffered severe burn injuries and died so as to attract Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of IPC.
the present appeal in answered in Negative holding that the appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court in a proper perspective in exercise of appellate powers of this Court under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of IPC, sentencing him to undergo
37
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 with default sentences. The same is in accordance with law.
ORDER
(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.09.2016 and the order of sentence dated 22.09.2016 made in S.C.No.117 of 2012 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, convicting and sentencing appellantaccused No.2 - the husband of the deceased under the provisions of Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby confirmed.
(iii) Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
*bgn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 IPC can be sustained on the basis of the dying declaration of the deceased who had sustained about 90% burns?
Whether an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be drawn against the husband for failing to explain how his wife sustained fatal burn injuries in the matrimonial home?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Purshottam Chopra and another Vs State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)Relied on¶24
AIR 2020 SC 476 · Who else cites this
Kalu Alias Laxminarayan Vs State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶26
(2019) 10 SCC 211 · Who else cites this
Prahlad Vs State of RajasthanRelied on¶27
(2019) 14 SCC 438 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Manjunath S/O Shivappa
Rangappa alias Rangaswamy S/O Shivappa
The State of Karnataka by Holalkere Police Station, Chitradurga District
B. Veerappa
M.G. Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
