_ A'CEN1_TfiALV msow, "?«AN_GAE_0RE)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALC)l§:E:__V:1'
DATED THIS THE 12*" DAY or FEBRUA:'3-.'f 4.:;'?.;0£:3§: "
PRESENT % % % L
ms HON'BLE MR. JUS11CE_S.F{." %
THE HGN'BLE MR. JUSfi'£E A:.Ni..'.AVEI5i'!JAG{)PALAAAG{)WDA
B:_ % " % %
NousHEERA;HAw;-Ea"V ' 1' T
s/0 ABDU_£.__WA1ZVEEE:;$AE k _ *
AseoAaom%3a5veAR:s* %
AGRICULTURIST 's:.;au_sIN_Es_:;.____
R/0 HosA;.u9E"rE_ . .
CHICKMAGALUR TALIJKV fa
(NOW m JUDICIAL wsrémfi
APPELLANT
w'k%(%Eav PASHA, ADV.)
' STATE OF KARNATAKA
" " EVA CHICKMAGALUR RURAL POLICE STATION
' . CHICi(!?1AGAl.UR TALUK & DISTRICT
* (REPRESENTED 8Y LEARNED
. f:S"h§TE PUBLIC PRGSECUTOR)
RESPONDENT
. ;(3v sax. s.a. mvm, 51>?)
to ‘corh’n1§t’.sui;ide bathroom. After forcibly opening
rtloorgffrnrhetiieteiy, he along with others shifted her to
e4._’_”innocent.vo2’7 the crime alleged.
. —–.”:;e\r_i_’:ilence, by the impugned judgment, rejectm the dying
fdeciaration at Ex.P-20 statement of the deceased when in
After committal and ohéthe basis of the charge.Veheet
material, the three accused are charge sheeted
they deny the charges and claim to he tried; u
in S.C.No.115/2006. ‘A it it
In order to establish the.._guiit”‘of””the it
prosecution has relied upon ilvjnarkeci
Exs.P-1 to P-»28 and MO$.._1,:’teV denying the
entire proseeo?tio}§.g A as Eefterrlji questioning the
accused under he has filed written
_thet’erhile accused No.1 had
been to three kms. away from the
houseet gabotit .S.30v; learnt that his wife had mm
the hosp_itel: that he and his family members are
trial Court, on appreclatien of the entire
5//”
ihfoifthe appeliant taking us through the entire
H Vt .judgtfient;–.V:ofvconviction and sentence passed by the triai
isvcontrary to raw, evidence and facts of the case.
contended that admittediy, there were number cf
Vt ‘:’_4:”dy’Ing deciarations said to have been made by the
.. 7 ..
injured condition and only relying upon Ex.P«-12 the dying
deciaratien recorded by the Taiuka Executive Magietzetevv
and Ex.P-17 intimation memo sent by the poifiiceh
hospital aiieged to be the history hgiyen by*’the’1i’i;iecea$ed ”
injureci, though heid that there vsfezzcf nej
us
harassment caused by accus’e:i._VNoe*.-1″‘to
demand of dowry end committed
by any of the p;un!;e_h:’a;bi.eien££er–§ectlens 3, 4 and
6 of the heehfound the appeiient
aione oft’ Hence, the prment
appeat x
.. Sri. ‘fleshniath Pasha, {earned ceunsei
e’vEde–nce” :’\¥ehe.,rfhenfly contended that the impugned
fix”
V’ “elso”e’li3’pport’vthe cesé”that the deceased herself committing
Veluicidge. Ansubmitted that as the entire prosecution
‘~.-v«._’__’deceasedgdiierself had committed suicide, there was no
of accused being found guilty for the offence of
‘ V,.._’flho_frzicidal death amounting to murder punishable under
. ufsection 302 IPC. on these among other grounds, it Is
– 8 —
deceased and three such statanents made at the
point of time have erroneously been rejected
Court and it further committed an errmfin reiyinfifxgpoovtheve. ” it
later dying declarations which
suspicious circumstances. It ie there
are contradictory dying’ ought
to have held that the AAc_a;_s’e._alfielnst”~~ti1Ae’._’;veécused is not
proved beyond:__”re§’3sonet!Ie “isfunher submitted
that the oniiijg. in the form of
daughte-froth thewdeceased i.e., PW-2 has
also not against the accused and on
the other hend,_:Vhetv’-sta.ten?ient, if perused carefuily would
material the spot mahazar indicate that the
tggvi”
-11-
‘7. At the outset, it is to be noted that _
of Nazeem Suithena on 9.2.2905 due ‘:’K~Vi::l1jUr§39V.¥§ u ..
sustained by her on 5.2.2005 is notT_mu:c.hz
disputed is as to whether.’ she ACo.I_’nmitte.fi”V’%’
contended by the defence \_afgtasV” as put
forward by the prosecuflfog. h K 2′
8. Before¥_consIt£-earthy}. hir:1v’:§’t’._oonit’etntions viz-a-viz
the evidenceholhhhifeoorn}.it, for us to ranind
ourselves or otherwise of the
dying aaeaarataonso g.ghte1m.mthe case of Khusbal Rae
v/s so.:eoete¢:aa:§ot;;«s 1953 so 22), cause and
another afkeiastbaa (AIR 1974 so 2188),
gamma 9;; ststeor flaryotur (AIR use sc 1225),
t;a:m.st¢zs or new (1.999 sec (cm) 1335), It
is uao amth2a«.» if the dying decaaratson is untainted and
*–.’V:c»redible,vv(.A’.tourt can accept the same and only on the basis of
:.’it,hca.n’..’.–‘proceed to convict the person atleoed in the said
jlsuitzide note as responsible for the act.
5/”
– 13 –
only material lw before us is the dying declaratian~sj:’e.n~dvv
statements said to have been made by
herself in the form of Ex.P11 re__cerd_ed 1at”‘v5..§9″”‘n.rnV.,
Ex.P13 recorded at 6.45 p.m., -Ex.P:2.0 rema etfxo”
on 5.2.2006 and Ex.P17 recorciedon s.2.2aosa:..g.4o.
and Ex.P12, the dying dnederatiofi-.reco_rded’ bylthe_VFTaiuka
Executive Magistrate atvabiiut on 8.2.2006.
14. Applying the test [laid ..dot«:;;. in respect of
acceptability or ‘.stateinents or dying
declarations laid down in various
proneuncernentgs earlier: normally the Court in
order tosatisfy was In a fit mental
condition to”‘rna’i-zeie declaration leeks into medical
«records thed”ear%l–est statements in the chronological
iobyious reasons that as time lapsm, the
condition ofivthei’ injured becomes critical and there is every
lvnosslbilltygofl the person being in the delirium state or she
‘ tutored to sneak something which may not be true.
2/M
“{-oriayirnalsaccused ‘No’;2)’Vand sister-in–law (original accused
her on fire. Immediately thereafta, the
v”‘~,-g_’__’TaAiuka ” .,iS3zecutive Magistrate, PW.10 has come into
A 4’ According to the doctor immwiately afta the
it was brought to the ward, she was subjected to
ctvenesection as there was dehydration and since em”
– 20 –
on fire. In the absence of any contra indicative material, it
can be safely assumed that, at that stage, it was a case of
commission of suicide by Nazeem suithana. It is
noted that though initial allegations were onlyfof
harassment and of offences under Dowry l’._Act l
only after complaint offence
under Section 307 IPC Section 302
IPC came to be” she was shined
to Manlpal story takes turn.
According” who examined her
on 8.2.2i)ad,’-the’ history of burns by pouring
kerosene} (appellant), mother-in-law
tidying declaration in true sense, recorded by
– Q1 ..
difficuity in breathing, she was also put on oxygen, anti-
biotics and pain kilters were atso given to her. Imnedtéteiy
thereafter, the Tatuka Executive Magistrate by
pm. has arrived at the scene and -he too K
statement as per Ex.P12 in queetko:-hi
peruse! of this statement, esp9gIal!yvjth”e._S”‘ qt::esti’oh
how she received injury and fat ‘the she V
states as thus: _ _ _ _ . V
“4 new teed
mm ij?$:bz:§>””‘fiQpeb 2.302%
15. ssss ‘VVTh_iA:.s:’:’ steternjeht’ ‘nude.-.«sm that, while the
minor chitd, hardty of 7
months, itvV”Es_ statf$$ Vth’at;!’the acicused/appellant and his
Aghothes she _s5ste”r hadvpoured kerosene and sa them on
” -.SA1£-vr;)r~’!$i!’i§%y_ there are no burn injuries what so ever
oh” .the and this statement is in clear conflict
‘ ‘with the Veyidehce of PW.2. In fact it is nobody’s case al
pouring kerosene on herself and the present stand. ‘taken
vlde Ex.P12 that It is the accused who set her %
pouring kerosene, that too, when she was Ve.:rn.lnor l
child which has not received any-L:
dying declaration suspicious.’ Thls._’£:enclesi’on. is
supported by the evidence 1dauV’gh.t_e’tr that
before going to bathronn1%.. “over the
infant to her, then wentVv1in’si_de”__enYd deer from
inslde. similegiyfthe stetenient”‘efl’the.’.ir§jured’ as noted In
the intimation: to the police as per
Ex.P17,.v:el%so”” besisllevnd hence we are more
inclined to VvecceptVVVthe~.ea’dleet.~*’version of the Injured as per
Ex.P1;. and l4£:errobe.ratedV”elnd asserted further as per her
“vV”*etetehi’etits in Exs;P’i’3’Vand 20 that the Kareem Sulthan
suicide and there was no homicidal
at£aci< 5y the husband. As such the finding of the
%°'~..«.._'_'Trial Ceurt1– in this regard without considering these aspects
4 phiper perspective, we hold to be perverse and illegal.
T 5/
-24-
16. At this stage, the learned State .P”t2t:tic
Prosecutor brought to our notice the
Court in the case of DALBIR smofu vs;s*r;ni1’tatotco.*:tgn;l=»c.;c’
reported in 21304 (2) crime,s-471 to ooogooo f
though the ingredients of theu’Vl’of_lf’encesVtpuniishahie under
Sections 382 and 306 under
Section 305 has been oooslooo even
if it is held that; oooooosoooccoooaooolegulcloo, the cause
being the the appellant, the
Court sr§hoold_t and find him guilty of
the offence! IPC by suitably modifying
the co.nviction’;
t ‘A«.3A{:e”‘~–a_re afraid to accept this contention. so far
e’s~.t’h’e’aVl’l%’etlo.n§” of harassment, cruelty punishable uncle’
V .vSectlon.4–9:!84;3tV’IPC, the Trial Court itself has given clean chit
‘tthe_acc’ttsed and acquitted them. This acqulttai has been
“challenged by the State and hence that finding has
T hecome finai. It is to be noted that, persons commit
62/
-25-
wife by her husband or in-laws, due to dispute_sgor
differences, without anything more, pursuant
wife commits suicide, it wilt not a’:t1:ract,the’~,ooiv”fence”V 7
Section 304-B or 306 IPC.
13. In the case of sonnet.’ttAi~-suAeMAtvs1 STATE
or HARYANA, reported inttgooa.}A1!i%,:tsct§k%’32o2, the Apex
Court has held thet,._jn cgese of suicide,
there must be of intimidation
or force, seicirte is necessary. Hence,
the contention = “t
:19. _ To nrove the offence of abetment to suicide,
V’ more in ‘tfie ‘form of some concrete and physical
the accused is required to be shown or
Adornittedly in the present case the accused had
ieft for”h§_s~ estate in the afiernoon Etseif and there was no
,”‘énAd5c_et:on whatsoever as to his alleged abetment. Hence,
‘ find no merit In this regard as put forth by the learned
r ufstate Pubiic Prosecutor.
gr”
-27-
20. After giving our anxious consideratioiiV:to7ij’ttie.
entire material evidence avaiiable, we find
the accused cannot be convicted ‘i”foi’:”–A.A_tiie
Section 302 rec as admittedly.» the v_deceavsedVV””‘h’erVsetf i l
committed suicide and.» as such..’Ve_:th’e»s._coniiictionvvi of the
appellant for the offence” ivdeatiz amounting to
murder punishabie cleariy illegal
and liable
“”” forwthe reasons stated above,
the appeatisVailoitedii”th:e«j’udgment of conviction and
sentence dated passed by the teamed Principal
I-it’:3essiensi.._”Judge, HCh’iiéitamaga|ur in s.c.No.115/zeoa is
— giving benefit of doubt, the accused
I semis acquitted.
A. Since the accused is stated to be in custody,
‘.’._’_.h7e.:sha’ll be released forthwith, unless he Is required in any
T other case.
é/V”
13«erK§f/Ks}.
-28..
23. Registry is directed to commu’e§§’cata:VV:’V
operative portion of this order to fa’éii’itatg*’_.to V
accused forthwith.
1-12/bb