IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF' JULY 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR;V---EPIC ~
AND »
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R.:AI{IIMARASV§iAM'3'. E '
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.50,»-gem.
BETWEEN: V E L
1 M.Cr. Chandrashekharappa E"
8/0 Gowdra ChikkappSt~,._ ,
48 years, Lingayath, Agricultujiriést
{Convict N0. 9366 E ' E
Central Pris0II4,.:B$11ary] E E "
2 I-ialibai W/'0 .Ci1atI_draShe1;.h'arappa
45 years, Larnbamgj 'by' 'Caste
Toddy Mémhant" _ V
(C0nv:'.ct N0". 9367*'
.~ , ¢ Ce:1?;ra1EA ?rison; "B{?:__1__I_§1Iy}
' Both are~r/.«j""NI_itta1akatte Village
*--- I-ia-rihar :'T_a11.ik .
E' 1' APPELLANTS
Sri Shivaprasad, Adv.)
E" Cstate I-Iarihazra Rural RS. RESPONDENT
7 +{.B§srI s.B. Pavin, SPP)
l\.)
This Criminal Appeal preferred by the Appellants
/Convict/Accused through Superintendent, Central Prison,
Beliary, against the Judgment dated 24.01.2005 passed, by
the Sessions Judge, Davanagere in S.C.No. 5_3,–‘w’_20’G.l’,
convicting the Appellants/Convict/Accused No.1 fandv._2 5f_or~.
the offences punishable under Section 802 r/W “of S’ 4_
sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for. life ‘:a_t1d._:t0 pay ~.. 0’
fine of Rs.5,000/~ each, in default Vto”‘undergo_..S;I’,_ for[‘on’e
year more.
appeal
This Criminal/Looming up for hearing
SREEDHAR RAO J., delivered the ‘foliowing.’—- ‘H
J Una M.’tE’I\Ellf
The case of the prosecution7disclo’ses that one Kum.
daughter the deceased was mentally
challenged, dumb had deformed upper and
lower V, ‘quarrelled with A-1 on 26.7.1995 for
waspting’*rnon_ey:v’«oi1’1alcohol. On 27.7.1995 at 3 pm. A-1
:’lV”e»..,__qua1’re1ledl and Went out of the house. A«~2 was
.,ll_gfeelding the to the deceased. A-1 came suddenly, douse
the child and set fire. The child sustained
‘l:,”sei:fere,%burn injuries and died on account of the burn injuries.
7 +A§j
informed the Police. The Police doirlot c.ome.’i1:a1_n”ediately and
arrestA-2. .L 1.» _
(3) In the night at_..8..,:30, e”A-zéxhad lodged the
complaint beferethe that her husband has
caused the case also discloses that
there are :.eye~\2Qit11esses incident. The Police have
‘thVe’:ichar:g’e A-l and A»~2 for committing the
offence eptiinish.ahle’-Ll’/S 302 r/W 34 IPC.
[4] it eyewitness and all other material witnesses
the prosecution have turned hostile and do not
‘ the prosecution case. The doctor who has admitted
deceased and made entries in the MLC register has
4/
testified to the effect that mother of the deceased byfname
Halihai had brought the child with burn inju..rie_s:f
treatment. The mother of the child gave histo:f_\’zf’_’that.:’hezself
and her husband had caused the
Court on the basis of the evidenceof has
and A-2 for an offence under section-3_Q2 The
accused are in appeai. A VA 2
(5) The following circ.u..rn:staVnces”.’a,re’:V~–ev’fdent from the
prosecution case; 55′ . ”
1. The -. ‘Eoctor:’w{ho.:testi.fted to the effect that the
mother hadbrought ‘a:r1d”a.d”r1ritted the child in the hospital
for trea.tment’udoesvriotfcoridclusively establish that it is A-2
._:””Who Ath€”xCI’1i}d’.V PW–1 does not identify and say
is» told that she is the mother of the child
and aeagat admitted the child and also gave the
T _histo:’3J to__vth.e§*effect that she has caused the burn injuries
_, jg ‘ « _ __a1»ongwit11 her husband.
A-2 had admitted the guilt, it was expected of PW–1
‘”–.to_have reported the matter to the Police and called the
_’4_”4:Po1ice for arresting A-2. The A-2 was arrested couple of
%/
days after the admission of the child to the hospitalg”-.The
MLC record contains LTM of A–2. The L0.
any attempt to get the LTM of A-2 compared width’ *
on the MLC register to prove the identity that’it:i;3,ZX§2*wi1,o ”
brought and admitted the injured to the.hfos’pital;—-. ” f
3. The PW~15 ~ 1.0. states thatlllth-e. A42′-had
burn injuries and that she treated the burn
injuries in the CG hospiti_al… not produced the
wound certificate of A-2 toi.lpro’ve:’Vthat’«.AS:he’_’.\has sustained
burn injuries in the i.ncic;ierit;’~
4. In the Shanmukhappa is
said to havetiajecoriipaniedl A.¥”2~~–alongwith the child for
treatmerit. The A:LShlarJ,r”riu1d1appa has turned hostile.
5. A~2 before complaint alleged to have made
v4..v.eXtrav.3i,1diCia1 confes__si_o:1 before the PW–1 at the time of
V7.Vad11′:titVtin,g’f’:At11t§~l,,.iVI1jured to the hospital. But two days
,t.iH1e of complaint, she implicates only A~I
l it for injuries to the child.
{6} 611- 1 overall analysis, we find that the evidence of
4. not clinchingly establish that it was A-2 who
_ it the child and admitted the child for treatment in the