Appeal against conviction of four accused under Sections 498-A, 323 and 307 r/w 34 IPC for allegedly pouring kerosene on the complainant's house. Eyewitnesses turned hostile; sole testimony insufficient; wound certificate showed no burn injuries; benefit of doubt given.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:50968 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1333 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
S/O AKLAHALLI MUNIYAPPA @ DYAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/AT RANGANATHAPURA VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. V NITHYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY VIJAYAPURA POLICE VIJAYAPURA.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC:50968 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2011
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/23.12.11 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC, DEVANAHALLI IN S.C. No. 343/10 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 323 AND 307 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Nos. 1 to 4 praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17.12.2011 passed in S.C. No. 343/2010 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Devanahalli whereunder the appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been convicted for offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each for offence under Section 498-A of IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each for offence under Section 323 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 years and
NC: 2024:KHC:50968 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2011
to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence under Section 307 of IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:50968 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2011
No. 113/2009 of Vijayapura Police Station, Bengaluru for offence under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 149 IPC. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet for offence under Sections 323, 498-A, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Case came to be committed to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court framed charge against appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. In order to prove the charge the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got documents marked
as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.10. Statement of the accused persons came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing arguments learned Sessions Judge formulated points for consideration and passed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence as noted supra. Said judgment of conviction and order on sentence has been challenged in this appeal.
to 4 would contend that P.W.2 to P.W.4 who are cited as
eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Only on the basis of evidence of P.W.1 - appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 came to be convicted. The evidence of P.W.1 does note establish that accused persons poured kerosene and set fire to P.W.1 and her house. P.W.6 one of the panchayatdaar has stated regarding earlier dispute between the husband and wife and they advising the husband to look after his wife. P.W.1
even though caught fire, has not sustained any external or burn injuries and that itself indicates that no incident had taken place. She submits that false complaint came to be
filed against the appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 as accused No. 1 is alleged to have married another lady. Children of P.W.1 who were with her at the time of the incident have not been examined. The MLC report has not
been sent by the hospital to the Police. Considering the entire evidence on record the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of alleged offence against the
NC: 2024:KHC:50968 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2011
appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4. On these grounds she prayed for allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4.
NC: 2024:KHC:50968 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2011
Marriage of P.W.1 with accused No. 1 was solemnized on 12.12.2001. Out of that marriage 2 children were born. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that after her marriage, till death of her father-in-law, i.e., for 8 years, she was looked after well. It is her further evidence that
after death of her father-in-law, the accused persons started ill treating her demanding to bring money. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that she was sent to her parents house with her daughter and her son was kept with them by the accused persons. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that P.W.7 and P.W.10 held panchayat and advised her husband – accused No. 1 who agreed to look after his wife and children and took P.W.1 and her daughter to his house. Thereafter, P.W.1 was made to reside in a separate house which is situated near the house of accused persons and
NC: 2024:KHC:50968 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2011
she started residing in that house with her two children. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that her husband – accused No. 1
came to her house and demanded Rs.1,500/- kept by her in Post Office in her account which she had earned out of her coolie work. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that accused
No. 1 assaulted her and in the night when she was sleeping, at about 01.00 am, she felt that some liquid was thrown on her face and when she got up she found kerosene in her house and the door was latched from outside and fire was set to her house and due to the said
fire, her clothes were burnt and her son sustained burn injuries on right cheek. She heard conversation of accused Nos. 2 and 3 who were said to be standing outside the house. P.W.2 to P.W.4 who were neighbors came and rescued them and she was taken to the hospital.
to P.W.4 who are stated to be the eye witnesses to the incident have not supported the case of the prosecution in totality. P.W.5 is the mother of P.W.1 and she has heard
about the incident from P.W.2 to P.W.4. What remains to be considered is the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the alleged incident of putting kerosene and setting fire. P.W.1 has not seen who poured kerosene and put fire. What P.W.1 has stated is that she heard conversation of accused
No. 2 – Venkatalakshmamma and accused No. 3 – Manjunath who were outside the house. She has not stated about the presence of accused No. 1 or hearing his conversation. P.W.1 has not seen accused Nos. 1 to 3 putting kerosene and setting fire. P.W.2 to P.W.4 who are alleged to have seen the acts of the accused persons have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to hold that accused persons have put kerosene and set fire and attempted to commit the murder. Evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.10 indicate regarding earlier panchayat held and they advising accused No. 1 and he taking P.W.1 to his house.
it is noted that there are no external injuries and there are no burn injuries. In the complaint Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has stated
NC: 2024:KHC:50968 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2011
that accused No.1 came to her house and assaulted her and snatched Rs.1,500/- from her. P.W.1 in her evidence
has not stated regarding accused No. 1 snatching Rs.1,500/- from her. P.W.1 in her evidence has only stated that accused No. 1 demanded the said amount and assaulted her. There is no mention of any injury in Ex.P.7 – wound certificate and even regarding the assault alleged
to have been made by accused No. 1 on that day. Considering all these aspects the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 307 of IPC. Benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused persons. Without considering these aspects learned Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 307 of IPC. The appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 have made out grounds for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence.
O R D E R
NC: 2024:KHC:50968 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2011
I. The appeal is allowed.
II. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17.12.2011 passed in S.C. No. 343/2010 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Devanahalli is set aside.
III. The Appellants - accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for offence under Section 498-A, 323 and 307 of IPC.
IV. Fine, if any, paid by appellants - accused Nos.1 to 4 is directed to be refunded to them.
In view of the disposal of the appeal pending applications do not survive for consideration and they are accordingly disposed of.
Issue release intimation to the concerned jail authorities, by e-mail, to release appellant No. 1 - accused No. 1 if he is not required in any other case.
Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in convicting accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Sections 498-A, 323 and 307 IPC for the kerosene-fire incident?
8 provisions across 2 enactments
Manjunath S/o Late Muniyappa
Venkatalakshmamma W/o Manjunath
Manjunath S/o Aklahalli Muniyappa @ Dyavappa
Munichowdamma W/o Late Muniyappa
State by Vijayapura Police, Vijayapura
Shivashankar Amaranannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
