A2" , "
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 218T DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
PRESENT
THE HONTSLE MR JUSTICE K SREEDHAR RAO
AND J' T
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE B.V. I-
CRIMINAL APPEAL N.O--.~1.43£)
BETWEEN: " " '
STATE BY SRIRAMPUPA.._V
POLICE. '
[BY SRI.P.M.NAwAz AIDDL:ISPPI;.._
1. V;G.KALLESIIA.PPA
_ S/O"GOPALAP1?A;"'3O YEARS.
" MODALIYAR BY" CASTE,
;_s_TO_NE WORK.' BELAGUR VILLAGE.
HQSADURGA TALUK.
"MUjII--IAIvIMA
W/01 GOPALAPPA, 60 YEARS.
.. Ty/IODALIYAR BY CASTE,
.. C-{JOLIE WORK, BELAGUR VILLAGE.
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDEN'IS
[BY SRLVINOD REIDDY. AND
SRI.G.PAPI REDDY; ADVS).
CRL.A. FILED U/S 378 (1) ('Sr (3) CR.P.C. BY THE
STATE PP. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DT.O6--0l--O5 PASSED BY THE ADDL.S.J., FTC,
CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.50/04 ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS--ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE ._ P/U/Ss
498--A AND 302 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. V
THIS CRL.A COMING FOR HEARING 'DAY,
PINTO J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING. ~ " ii .. 9.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed byjthle”Stat.e T.
judgment dated 6.1.05 passed
Judge, Fast Track
aequitting the responden.ts}’a.ccuVsed of the offence under
Sec.498–A, 302 r/vyT 33 are referred to
acccjrdingt to’..tpheii<Eranl{'«in the Trial Court.
E2'. _The_ lcase prosecution is that A-1 is the
husband"–«.E33 and the motherfiinmlaw of the deceased
After Vthe.ir..«1narriage, they lived in their house at
' yillage. They forced the deceased to bring dowry
3' . from Vherijpari"vents house and on account of the same both A~–
léu meted out physical and mental cruelty to the
2 A "deceased thereby they are alleged to have committed an
offence punishable under Sec.498A1PC.
Y'
/X
3.lt is further charged against them that on 24.2.04
at about 10 p.m., in the night in their house, accused No.2
poured kerosene on the deceased and accused”-..l\lo_.1 lit
match stick and set Jyothi on fire, thereby
to have Committed the murder of Jy0th.i”pun:ishal3l’eV
Sec.302 r/w S34: IPC.
4. In order to prov’e’thxe th’e”‘prAo_secutionv lias
examined in all 19 \iVl1;I1€SSe.’g l§2xs.P1 to 17
and produced the accused was
one oftotal denial. V
5. prosecution and the defence, the
learned Sess’ioVris:–i..’ “acquitted the accused of all the
offences against them. The State is in appeal.
_°€\.Hearéi* .t1.1§_v1eamed Addl.S.P.P for the State and
‘ 1″‘S.hri.VVinc.d””Reddy for the accused and perused the evidence
‘– A on’ revccrcl. and other materials.
,7. ‘Erie prosecution case rests on the dying declaration
of tl1eA’3deceased Jyothi which was recorded on 26.2.04 at
9
2.30 p.m., by the PS1 in the presence of the doctor who has
recorded that the patient was conscious enough to give the
statement. It is stated in the evidence of PW–_i.9l_i’-Dric=.,_Nira_i
before whom dying declaration was reCordea”–~._,’t_iviati. igrhgn
dying declaration was recorded, the”‘rela.tives=of; u'[l1l’f:”‘V”-.
deceased were present at that=._pla.ce,.f? Further ‘it:’is_. stated”‘*
that some old women helped. Jyothi” to
The other evidence on recordK’1r1_ oilfflthe relatives
and other known hasvgiven oral dying
declaration before was admitted
to the has also suffered
injuries 1 on haiidgwhji-le ‘i’eiscii;in’g his wife.
8., -{)fln’–a–~._care’ful”nconsideration of the entire material
on record.-we ‘are”not’lirnpressed by the version in the dying
declaration”» the possibility of dying declaration being
it ” A .__by the relatives is not ruled out. Other than the
vtlyirigfdgecllaration, there is no cogent and sufficient
‘inate_ria1vtA.7to hold that the accused have committed the
AA offence of setting fire to the deceased. The aspect of ill-
” fnieatment and harassment prior to the death is concerned
the evidence cannot be believed.
9. In that View of the matter, we find that the order of
acquittai passed by the trial court is we}! eonsidered_ and we
do not find any reason to interfere with the A’ of
acquittal.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal’iSAatjisn1i$sec}t V ”
Sd/-1
Judge