IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST: 2.01" BEFORE E E E H THE HON'BLE MR.JUST£C'._E A1$;Ai~§i:iA' V CRIMINAL APPEAL;"NO:;.A6O:2/E2063'_ , ' EA BETWEEN: 1.
.Chikkavéé1’ér7g¢w'(i$i.
Honne Gowda @
Honnaraju V– -_
Aged about 45 yea”r’s;_” ‘ . 2
S/0.Chikkayeeregowda. E ”
Aged aboéfi v753’yearjg..Vj'””‘~ _ V
S / 0.1ateV H ai:1_1,1 m.a_nth’;1r1r1a_. V
Aged about V 68:jy(é’a1fs’*- .. E <
W/o.ChiEkvka'v¢é1ie »–Gfiwda.
_._{X1I are res*id.ents of
_ ‘-.E.iVIuppac:1ig11attéivillage
. ‘ n ., IV{adu1’av ‘f*~l(‘)b1i
A V _ D0§idabfi{–=]_&:i_1.)L1fa Taluk
‘ ~. A’ ‘«Banga”1:)1′{-:=V[‘R} District.
. .. APPELLANTS
[By S”r§_.AFi.C.Ha:1umaiah, Adv.)
State of Karnataka
By Doddabelavangala P.S
By State Public Prosecutor
accused Nosi to 3 have preferred this appeal. Accused
No.2 [appellant No.2) died during the pendeney:”of~».the
appeal. Therefore, appeal against him abat–e:s.” A
3. In brief. the case of as
follows: A A A A A A
Accused No.1 is the and 3.
His marriage with Wsg’p&rfonned
about 10 Manjuia is the
daughter PW–2 is the
mothermoi’–»..i?Vit:”.3.h:.V_ elder brother of PW~1.
Accused__ iiving together. The first
to cruelty in connection
“dowry The first accused was also ill
t1<eatiifigA..arid~–.harassing deceased. He was to addicted
intervening night of 7/8.8.1998 at
–V about p.m.. accused No.1 returned home and
pi’ck.edv”‘ up quarrel with PW~1, accused Nos.1 to 3
Aasisauited PW– E. Accused No.1 droused kerosene on PW»
Accused Nos.2 and 3 instigated accused No.1 to set
PW–1 on iire. Accused No.2 had given a match box to
the hands of accused No.1. PW–1 ran away. The
gv.
neighbors. on hearing the noise, canie there and
chastised accused -No.1. On the following
sent words to her younger brother PW–3
who came to the house of PW~l_, and to()1the:r’jv >1′
Health Centre, Kadanur Post.
4. PW»li Dr.Vinay and
found the following: g it it
1} Smc-2lli_i’_1g of ”
2) chest, cheeks,
gggg _Vtiii:g17;’i”
(small) seen over the lower
“3tbdc)i’1ien’}”.A’ .–
,{?W-».t1z} o;§1’r’i”e”(i’Vthat injuries were sustained as a
‘eig’V.ifire.u_l:3″_t.;rns and they were simple in nature.
–1 with the assistance of PW-3 lodged first
inifornriatiori on 11.9.1998. The Investigating Officer
‘visited the piace of occurrence, recorded statements of
99 wtlvitnesses and seized the clothes of PW–1. The
Investigat:i1″1g Officer submitted the charge sheet for the
I
aforestated oiieiices. {mg is .91/*~&v~
if’
6. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to were
examined. Documents filed by the prosecutionftdgwere
marked as per Exs.P–1 to P-13 and
were marked as per Exs.C–1,_,»C–._1(a}
material objettis were marked 3. ”
7. As aiready stated, Judge
convicted actmiscd i’oif.».ai”§:)i7fencesA punishable
under Sectio;1’$ convicted
accused 307 of IPC.
Therefore: would arise for
deter13riinat’io§’fi’i’.V ‘ a p ” d
1]’& ifijorosecution has proved that
to 3 were subjecting PW–1 to
in connection with dowiy demand and
No.1 was subjecting PW–1 to cruelty
b’_\ii:<ii'1stantiy harassing and assaulting her'?
A' W'I"iether the prosecution has proved that
dtiring the intervening night of 7/8.8.1998 at
about 12.00 a.rn., in the mid night, accused
No. 1 assaulted PW–1 and droused kerosene on
PW-J and attempted to set fire on fer/. With
s1,u'ri'1 intention and knowledge, if by theacts if
he had caused the death of PW–1,
have been held guilty of an offence'
Set;-:i()r1 302 of IPC and…t.hereby”tcg:§5j.:fji’tted ‘ T
oi’i’e1’1n:e under Section 1307?ffof’IPC~?_”‘
3] To what order’? it I
8. The ;):”<)secu_tion the evidence of
PW– 1 Laksh :'namrna,.. " .:PiV–i'3: Gowda, PW–4
:;p:tV"flf'§Vhankarappa, PW–6
PW–8 Manjula
and 1__are' alleged to have convened
some péll'-3,(.'1i*E31}'$ét§S."'VI »–
A. none of these panchayatdars
suppo_1_*'te_d= ti"'._L""_:sZ3élS(§? of the prosecution. The prosecution
' has: alsoDiitrilttic-~<'i on the evidence of PW–11 Dr.\/inay
Kumar, "
A 9. Befme proceeding to appreciate the evidence of
aforestated vmiiesses, it is necessary to state that as per
the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PW–8, accused assaulted
PW–1 and cimnsed kerosene on PW–1 and accused No.1
w
was about to set fire to PW–1. This incident occurred
during the intervening night of 7/ 8.8.1998. has
deposed that as she was helpless she seciired-..:.h.er
younger brother Veere Gowda and
information. However, from)’ the « ‘contents. _ of first
information marked as Ex_.P–1
information was lodged by 1 on 1 about
8.30 a.m. The first marked as Ex.P«~
11 prepared on them .–first[_’information was
received by rhéfiiizrisc3.ictiu1iai’p§:iice.05 11.9.1998. Thus,
first ir’1i’or*mlafE;ioriWas”‘lodgedlaftezr a period of one month
and if days date of occurrence. The
jurisdictional’pol’ice’=isVat a distance of 10 kms. from the
‘ V’ placie of oecurrence.
and 3 have not given proper
e};planatiori*i:for belatedly lodging the complaint. In the
first “information marked as Ex.P~11, PW«~1 has not
stated that at the first instance, jurisdictional police had
wriefused the registered complaint or PWs.1 and 3 had
thought that accused and his parents would amend
N .J»~.a»£t..
themselves. The explanation offered during the course
of trial is a clear after thought.
11. From the contents of wound certificate:
as Ex.P~13, we find that PW-1 was examirre-id
Dr.Vinay Kumar at 11 a.m. o;:’1″”‘1’0«.8«, ‘
Health Centre at Kadanur,
history is given as due to
accused Nos} and of the
inordinate delay in first’tA~’.I’,_’inforrnation, the
evidence of :to relating to the
occurlrvencelt -taken place during the
intervenirrgi requires careful
scrutiny.
it — first information, PW–}, has not stated
that had set fire to her after drousing kerosene
on her,_. A1′ However, during the evidence not only PW–l
–..hu.t.’..aiso PW~8 has deposed that accused No.2 had lit a
….rnatch stick and threw it on PW–l as a result, her saree
caught fire. The neighbors came and saved her. PW~1
has deposed that on account of occurrence, she had
N wdtwa,
suffered burn injuries and she had gone to the hospital.
PW–8 Manjula is the daughter of accused and .,uAt
the time of occurrence, she was aged
She has deposed that at the tirn__e…of_ ./ 9
No.1 droused kerosene on PVV:-1V
match box to accused on ‘f’W–
was set on fire. Thusawe finduthe’Vevidencevvgiven by FW-
1, apart from being’ of first
information 2 is the daughter
of accused_.,g ‘I.’ In the normal
be any reason to
suspect her the aforestated evidence
of PVWV-8, ‘We find she too had given an exaggerated
versioiyitiiiat fnother [PW-1] had been set on fire by
that too after accused had droused
kerosene’ From the medical evidence given by
PW– 1″1.v__and the contents of Ex.P-13, we find that PW–I
“”V’,,,ha.d’f.-not suffered burn injuries. PW–11 Dr.Vinay Kumar
…_vvho had examined PW-1 on 10.8.1998 at Primary
Health ‘Centre, Kadanur had deposed that she had
suffered foilowing injures: T\’s ‘
l) Smeliing kerosene
2] blunt injuries to the left shoulder, chest, ch_eeks,
both thighs and lower abdomen. T T
3} Signs of burns blisters {small} seen
abdomen. 1 s_ .s _ _ __ Vs A
PW~11 had noticed that iaotms ‘w.ojrn.’_
were emanating smell of d
that injuries were c.at1sedV.i-ac:..”sa. ‘result llofwassauit and
setting fire. He had’ d_epose3di’ blisters were as a
result of bu.i’na’injur§ies: wJith..Vlkef*.osser;e; Blunt injuries
were Zcausedl ‘i:i’y–i,_1 se of._b1~u__n–t fforce.
__Duri:iigVV’cro,ssl’=ei§:arnination, PW–11 has admitted
theiwioirds n”clothes””‘Vwere inserted subsequently before
of kerosene” marked as Ex.C–1. He
had d§?i1id€isdAl.i1€ suggestion that the words “two blebs”
had subsequently in the accident register.
The prosecution has not adduced evidence of
b independent witnesses to show that accused had set fire
to PW–1. The evidence of PWs.i and 8 that accused 1
and 2 had droused kerosene and set PW–1 on fire does
N
not inspire confidence. The clothes of PW-1 were not
burnt. Even F.S.L Report as per Ex.P–12 does not
disclose that clothes of deceased were burnt. the
contents of l*’.S.L Report, PW–l was
saree at the time of occurrer;;ce.”‘I«f
nylon saree and if she had bee.n’._setV_Aon
have suffered burn injuries”vs:ai1d her
burnt. The other is that
the clothes worn by!’ smell of
kerosene. As”alijeady;3Stated t’heTfi.rstinformation relating
to occurrence \3}a;s’lod.ged é;iter”a period of one month
and three. dz-:3/s;’..l’:_t«The:el_4othes and other incriminating
articles such”as_o–ne’=_plastic bucket and plastic can were
‘i V’ reccCVeired’viai’i:er aperiod of one month and three days. In
thecifeunisiaiices, the presence of kerosene on the
saree of and the other articles such as plastic
bucketstahcl plastic can is not sufficient to hold that
-..accu’sed had spilled kerosene on PW–1. In View of the
l above discrepant evidence, it is not possible to hold that
during the intervening night of 7/8.8.1998 at about
12.00 p.m., accused No.1 droused kerosene and he had
Iv. _;\–=\– 9M»<'14~ –
set PW-1 on fire, with such intention and knowledge by
the above acts, if accused No.1 had caused the death of
PW~1, he would have held guilty of an offerice”:..u~nd€r
Section 302 of IPC, thereby committed’::”ai:»::offenVc’e
punishable under Section 307 ofTPC«.. Q_ _ V
13. The learned trial
discrepancies has held I.
offence under Sectionyy :4 it Therefore, the
findings of the learned be sustained.
poilnt for””d’etermination is whether
the prosecu tior1’h:as” provyegzl that after marriage, accused
was_subje’ci’ing.Vd~eclease’d to cruelty and accused Nos}
ari:d”i’3;L_Awere subjfecting deceased to cruelty in respect of
and accused No.1 was always harassing
and assaultnig PW~1?
marriage of PW–1 and accused had taken
about 10 years before the first information was
___l.bdged by PW»1. PW–8 is their daughter. PW–1 has
deposed that after marriage, accused demanded and
received gold jewels from her. The first accused was a
womanizer. The first accused had assaulted and
extracted gold jewels form PW-1. The first accused had
sold gold jeweis and squandered money. T
was demanding PW–1 to bring money frorrl:her=parent_s’ll”
house. On some occasions, Shemhad
Rs.500/- from her parents’,
namely Mu11ithimmegowdal””‘lfl%Vi7w4)l [PWl–ll
6), Shankarappa [PW-7},
Kempegowda (PW–9) planchayath. In
the said par’;’::lia3i.ath;l–.the promised and
gave a”coix;;’i;o “I’he’-first'”a”c’cused sold cow within a
periocl’_of._six.rrionths..llTl1.e first accused again started
beating 15W–l” a,nii her to get money from her
pairentsp’ h,ou.se.l “”i’heV first accused was also advised by
from Bangalore. They advised first
ainend his behavior and take proper care of
PW»I,vai1d his child. The first accused did not reform
iiimlself. He was always harassing and assaulting
.. _..deceased on one pretext or the other. He was also
demanding her to bring money from her parents’ house.
PW»~8 is the daughter of PW–1 and accused. She had no
{Va ”'”‘d(‘~ !
grudge or iii will against her father. PW-8 has deposed
that accused No.1 [her father) was harassing PW:_t (her
mother) to bring dowry from her parental houseff’ ‘vI”_i’i,’:[.l*1at
connection, her father and other
her mother. PW~l had
occasions froni her parental
was beating PW~1), On
by her was iiisufficient. crossffexaniination,
evidence of l_”W~»8 that :’dern_emding PW–1 to
bring dowry;’~iiasVg:gr1ot iheegn-~serio:u:sl§,r.Cfiintroverted. Apart
from tthis,’lit.iii§s was staying in the
house”.gof._ her : grand father. In fact, the
evidence lf_’5V’J~_8– Was””sought to be demolished on the
PW?8″‘has been staying in the house of her
parents and they wefe taking care of her
educationtf At this juncture, it is relevant to state that
accused’ No.1 is the father of PW-8. In the normal
circumstanms. one would expect accused No.1 to take
N «care of PW–8. In the instant case, accused No.1 had not
offered any expianation for leaving PW–8 in the care and
custody of her maternal grand parents. On the other
We dfiet- £’>*v»–£(.¢\s
demanding PW.1 to bring money from her parental
house and he was abusing and assaulting her.
16. We have the evidence ‘Au
the younger brother of PW– 1,
less similar to the evidence–o:’i”~PW»A2’v’. sjseendd
from the backgroundv ofV.PW;2′,”i:sAthat is: a rustic
J;
villager not: capable or giving
false evider1(__~c_ stated, PW–3
is the has given evidence
with r§:gai~a to PW–1 by the first
accused.’ ‘ii-:ic-5 «given evidence regarding
panchayatljéiwlivat.vvas’v.co’nvened to advise the accused.
fie deposed thatacow had been given to accused to
‘patzigfjf ;¥’ndV”_i11e was advised to mend his behavior.
Accused_.1’ec'{%.ived the cow and sold it but did not mend
it ‘ ~ ‘~ . his beh.avi”or.
17. PWs~i–, 5 and 6 had participated in panchayath.
“”They have imt: supported the case of the prosecution.
PW-7 Veeremuddaiah, one of the panchayathdars has
Q’- ‘/”‘O(1«
supported Hie case of the prosecution. PW~_?” has
deposed that PW~7 at the behest of PWs.1 to 3
panchayath and advised the accused
behavior. V ‘
PWs.1 to 3 had cornp1_ained._v.”that
demanding dowry from advised
them. to live £iarmonio,_u”s–1y. received a cow and
sold it. Their:-zafter, aga.in.:’s:tart.ed_g PW– 1.
During’ PW-7, nothing has
been elricite-citiyito thehetvidence of PW-7. I do not
find that PW-J’? iiadj_~any..V_iii»te:’est in the success of case of
prosecutioiiwnor.he any i11–will against accused.
«..Thei7:e:f0iT€:, ironit evidence of the aforestated
wi’i;ness:§f:s.,_h find that the prosecution has proved
beyond ‘v.rea.:s<'iVnabIe doubt that accused No.1 had
t3"»-'«.___V'subjectedA:' PW» .1 to cruelty, by continuously harassing
gV.'and..an;ssauii.:ii'1g her. The accused did not mend his
behavior even after a panchayath. Accused had also
"abandoned his daughter PW–8 and she was being taken
care of by lier maternal grand parents. The conduct of
Conviction oi' accused No.1 for an offence under Section
498~A of 13°C and the ‘sentence passed
confirmed. The period of detention un:Iergo1je””ii3jf_4’i M
accused No.3 cf-urirag the course vof””u’-2:11 is g.i.Ve’nfset’–off,.”;
as provided under Section 428 of
118.8 .