El
yrosecatien. He submits that the apeellants have
not made out any ground to warrant interferehee;
7. We have scrutinized the. eViéeheeU
lead by the prosecution and alse the §oeuments”‘
produced.
8. As revealed sfixom hthe Vcaee[»g§H§the_i
proceesion, the incideht , toot _ piace on
l?.18.200l at 3§a§f_p;mitiEylt§,OO p.m. the
deceased Anusadha waa gqfiittefiigfi the hospital
with burhet }eiW;2€_ ea tthe”;head~conetable
working €i§{ifihahaha§Eh§eiieew Station and he
receieeei a g?h;hev_eai}_ them the Government
hoepital,i Shahafiefifiiiabout admitting the
deceased §narafiha’ for treatment of burns.
.aImme£iateiy_ he went to the hospitai and
Areeerdefi her statement. His evidence reveals
that_ at’ the time when the statement was
A”%ireeerde§, her parente~in–iaw i.e., Al and A2
4* were also present. At that time, Anuradha told
i”” that she sustainefi burns accidemtaily when she
« was lighting the stove. This statement of the
deceasaj Anuradha was recordefi by P.W.26 as
94
ethe _fe;ek; Executive Magistrate cannot be
‘3e:eprée,%C:r’ is relevant to note that even
a”,ireeording the statement (If the deceased, her
°pereetewie~law were present and the fact that
‘””the mind of deceased was ihfieehced due to the
12
per Ext.P12 end he obtained. her thumb
imgreeeieh. as she was met able to put. her
signature and informed the police te_eehe e
pelice-constable te shift the
hospital ate Gulberge on the_’inetruettehSpVer”
the eoetor. it is thereafterg re”g§re§eee re’
the police etetieh eaee Vhahded7]eyermEthe_h
complaint to the ASE. V t V
4 9. It is Q§hfihe%beeteee§’thie Ext.Pl2,
the apeeglanfi C?3é”;’t;3fIfdé” earliest
ieformat§,oe. :re:se§mm regard to an
eecidehtelrtrreJeeahthereéefe, he submits that
the Qereiee efi the proeecutioh regarding the
eubeeqeeht “de§e$eeeehts and the dying
dee1aretiofiWQ£ the deceased in the presence of
P.%226h.ih his evidence states that whiie
presence of her perente~ie~law cahnet be over»
13
ruled. Furthermere, her statement was recorded
by P.W.l3, the ASI of Shehabad Peiice Station
who came to Gulbarge to guard the iejered
Anuradha while she was in the bares wage ‘Etfi
was on 17.10.2002 itself that
the injured to the hoepitaif and ¢§ent_,aI
requisition to the Talek_ExeeetiveJ§efiietratedW
to record the dying ideciaretiee: ef the
deceased. The cep§ ef the reqeieitieh has been
produced at Ext.P2?_fihieh wee eerhowiedged by
the Taiuk fifieeetite Megietrete at 16.08 p.m.
en the eemeidee end en the eext day, the Taluk
Exeeetiee Eeg;%£fete game to the hospital and
recorded the §£§:ée§§t”or the injured.
:.1Q, §heu”dbcter’ Tejappa {P.W.23}, after
-3Xgmiߤficg of the injured, issued certificate
iwregerdieg the mental condition of the iefiured
stating thet the injured is in a fit condition
‘i”e”tQT eefie the statement. It is in such
deireemetaeces that P.W.13 recorded the
t°»Hetatement of the injured as per EXt.Pi4 and
V ebtained her thumb impression wherein she
i-=2
stated that on 17.16.2881 when she was
preparing feed in the kitchen and when she has
about te light the gas stove she says @5333
accused No.2 came and poured keresene.dh”her ‘
head and thereby’ the burning» fiane “eff the
stove spread out and when she~raised«ah_eiarm.i
and went to accused _§c{i;_ he~:phshed her
stating that then both
accused Ncsti_ahd*2 fieered eater on the body
in crder te eeeid hee and efig éhd then she was
shifted_ to ‘ss§fi;§§ei’fias§ita:. Accused Nos.l
and é,threatehed her not to disclose the fact
to anfhcdy etherwise; she wculd be killed. It
is. in’ thesea circsmstahces that the deceased
.had _§adejva statement as per Ext.P12 when
haccusedftNesfll and 2 were present and she
exfiieihed in her statement as per Ext.?i4, the
h,’circumstances under’ which. she has given her
hetatemeht Ext.Pl2.
13. So it is on the basis of Ext.?14,
the complaint that §.W.28 registered Crime
Ne.ll$/G1 fez the offences punishabie under
ti.
20
consistent with her statement made befere
?.W}33, the Taluk Executive Magistrate whetein
in her statement befete ?.W.33 she states thetu
her parentsein-law poured k&ZOS€fl€}\§Ré _setuV’
fire. She does not sayt definitety. eat te}
whether it is accused Ne,l ot,ecceeeduMo}2 wee K
peured kezeeene and set firfi; fhetetiaieuch a
discrepancy in hetfldyjflgféeeiaratiea éxt.P28.
In our conaideredtQ§tnteeLtfiaefgtself is not
sufficient t§»a;s¢ara tee efiiaéace led by the
Dreaecutien: it we abtatifitéé the evidence of
P.W.tP tfiétmgeeereaé the eeceased, P.W.2, the
elder tbtOtheetB§§.Lthe deceased; P,W.3. the
sieterA of “the tdeeeased, ?.W.4, the elder
°”b§efihé:je: e.afi, e.ws.5 to 7 and e.as.10 te
t”i4; it geeid reveal that soon after they heard
abeut the eeceaeed sustaining burns, they went
t’tQ the hospital and aede enquiries with the
txeeceaaed as to the cause of burns. Before all
t~t these witnesses, the deceased ceneistently
stated that it is accused Ne.2–Parvathi, he:
mother–in*}ew whe poured kerosene and set
a:
2}.
fire. Before these witnesses, she does net say
anything as regards accused No.1 either about
pouring kerosene or setting fire with» the
match stick. In the circumstancee, as there is
eensistency in the evidence as agaieet.aeeeee§il
No.2 with regard to the part elayee hf heryin
peering keresene and setting_fire and as rhere_
is some discrepancy as regarde aceused No.l,V
we think that it is jear gee greeer to give
benefit ef doubt tev§¢euae5l§e[%[h
15. Se tar as §¢euaéagaa.: is concerned,
in the stafiefientraeaéfieiéle which was recorded
in the prae§a%e*af fine fleeter, in the evidence
ef the eitfiaaéegagafagrea to above, there is
eonsieteet’versien as regards the part played
,1,
-., by 5aCCaeed xNevr in pouring kerosene and
ly:eettie§”fire- It is well established principle
efliaw.tnet the Ceurte have to make an effort
r,’te refieve the grain from the chaff and try to
,r”fiind eat the truth. Applying this principle,
ee think that accused No.1 is to be excluded
in view’ of the discrepancy in the dying
04
26
fict and the conviction of accused No.3 for the
offence under Section 498-A X/we 34 I§fii7emd
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dewzy ?rohih£ticm Ree
afid so also the conviction of aecuse§3Ne€2_fcfu
the offence under Section 498¢Ajrfw 3@ 19$ are
set aside. They are facquitfied e§c;tfie _eeid H
charges.
The ccnvictic5fla;p§ egentehce cf” Accused
No.2 éappellent §Q,Q heeeifi} fee the offence
under Sect§e§L§@§c1@C;iejcchfiemed. Accused
No.2 is _efi£;tiee ‘éc “thég set off U/S 428
The”gbaii”-beede* sf accused Nos.l and 3
i.e§; appellafit Nes.: and 3 are cancelled.
Sd/-8
Iudge
sd/-5
Judge
BN8/SEC