IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUs$;«~~2Q'llj__e- "
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUS'l'iC:l¥l.3lAlV{l_:S"1'"<Ii3l3?l)Irlt'x_1§ _
N519
THE HONBLE MR.'
CR,I_,;"A,_ No.="1"155j'cili*eA2Q04
BETWEEN: -
State of Kamata_1§a. ._ 1
By Nagan}a.=1;;_za1eijV_ Eoli*ce; __
(By Sr; P'-.3/1. V1V\r§iu'.iaz:,'lA.c:1tl1.,:
AND:- V' t
l\{ai':aygtflagowd'a; « _____ H ;
'V " _S/'o. Nrarasimhegowda,
' ;.3'8=ye'arS.l
. O"c_:_c:;A samageya Plumbing,
ea/a. Kale1~ia%ialliVi1lage,
Nagamangala Taluk.
' Mandya District.
V. Venkatareddy, Advocate}
Appellant
Respondent
.This Crl.A. is filed U/s.378(1) 8; (3) Cr.P.C. by the
State P.P. for the State praying that this Horfble Court may
be pleased to grant leave to file an appeal against the
Judgment dated 17.02.2004 passed by the R0,, Fast Track
Court-II, Mandya, in S.C.No.30/97, acquitting the
//A7′:
respondent~accused for the offences punishable :3:
307 of IPC. The appellant/State prays that theWa’ooVea.’order
may be set aside. 2
This appeal coming for hearing on .3; .
delivered the following:
Junemeqig
Being aggrieved by theEj”u.dgnien.t
passed by the learned.»-Spessions ¢.¥’:_L:1d’ge,.’FastA’Iracl{V: Court ~– II
at Mandya in S.C.No.3G} respondent for
the offence State has filed this
appeal. I 1 1 A 3
I . The .»the prosecution is that on
14.1_l.199t3~. in the–.nig,_ht about 2’0 clock the resondent is
‘~ A .haveA’varo–:1gful1y confined CW1 — Prema locking the
‘ :front the house where she was sleeping with CW2 —
.Mo1lAegoW’d5al..and CW3 – Puttamma and thereby he has
corhmitted an offence U / s.342 of IPC.
3. It is further alleged against the respondent as on
.. ___the said date, place and time, he removed the tiles of the
house where CW1 to CW3 were sleeping and with the help of
torch light, he poured kerosene on CW} and threw a burning
Q’
//5′
match stick on her with an intention or knowledge that if by
that act he had caused the death of CW1 he wouid have
been guilty of murder and thereby committed :’0.f_t’e.I_1ce
U/s.3(}7 of IPC. The prosecution in order
has examined PW1 to PW11 and; got rnar’ked’-iE::st;}?1″to
and produced M.Os.1 to 9. After hearing. ‘arid
the defence. which is one oftttctal denial. the’v:tria1…C9u.:rt
acquitted the respondent of oifencesgtcharged against
him. Hence, the State tiled
I . thejinjured Prema and she has stated
before the Court that. marriage has taken place about
13 years prio’r.t_othe date of incident and they have got a son
m;_ed–lock and he is aged about 11 years and his
A ‘V and the accused treated her well for two
yearsthe marriage and her son was born during that
up period… and after the birth of her son the accused started
“E-ivihg at Bangalore. Thereafter, there was dispute between
them and therefore, the respondent started iiving separately.
It is alleged that she had filed O.S.No.153/ 1994 on the file of
Munsiff. Nagamangala and the court has directed the
V’
/X
respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.400/-to PW1.
During the pendency of the suit, on
complainant attended the court along with her :’.1_”11e’».’
respondent was also present before the d’-a.y.u’
The court had directed the respondent
towards conveyance of acctised it
After they came horne; at 2,00 all the
members of the family«were:sleeping:”in”the house, she saw
the respondentr.remoyingthe ‘itiiestt ‘roof at the place
Wherettshe “poured kerosene on her using
torchvvfllightt “~Shfi:diliillediately Woke up and saw
respondent dpo-uringiker-‘esene from the terrace and she cried
her AAclotht.si’were damped with kerosene. In this
‘ v:,connection.s’t1e had filed complaint before the police on the
7′,’1.e’:~2t is the complaint.
it .. V PW2 is the father of PW1. He has stated that his
‘ ‘~ daughter was deserted by the respondent and she is living in
“Bangalore and he has stated that as on the date of the
offence, they had gone to the Court and on the night at 2’0
clock, he came to know through PW} that the respondent
P
//7’
had poured kerosene on her through terrace by removing
tiles and thereafter he came out from the hougse, and
subsequently lodged the complaint against the…r§s;§§fia¢r;:p.
PW3 — Puttaswamygowda is a neighbour. q
has turned hostile to the case e5fmthe«prose;cuticn,_VP;W4”.~–
Jayaramu is also another neighhourgvvhotttlias
noise in the house of PW1 and.._vvhen he went.n_eai’=Vthe house. V
he saw accused getting..down”‘f1’o;ni the roof of~M’ol1egowda’s
house. Immediately, “‘h:;mse1r§’i’» and others
surroundedZifimdu”caughtgwhiin and at that time, they
observed.’ .people*V:’.”gathered:”‘there broke open the door by
breakingwtthe iockanti ttthetreafter they observed that kerosene
dropped fr”0rn…_th’e terrace of the house of Mollegowda.
‘ PWI were also damped with kerosene. There
“Was kerosene lamp near the scene of occurrence. PW5 is
Boregowdhax, signatory to Ex.P.2 seizing torch light, plastic
2 A’ and match box. PW6 is another eyewitness who
ta’-corroborates the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW?’ has turned
‘uthostile to the case of the prosecution. PW8 is the relative of
PW}. She has stated that she heard that accused poured
kerosene on PW1, however she has turned hostile to thiei.case
of the prosecution. ” t t
6. PW9 has also not supported
‘case dot” the V’
prosecution. PWIO is the Circlednspector ,:w:;IVi’O b
registered the case in Crime the
U/s.3-42 and 307 of IPC a11d””~transniitted_:the”–.i5IR to the”
Court. He has conducted investigation inhthe znatter and
after receiving necessaiy handed over further
investigation to’P__SI the PSI who has
co:mp.,iete_d– and filed charge sheet against
the respondent;. consideration of evidence of all these
witpnesspes, .the_:1earned Sessions Judge has found that the
notmguiity for the offence for which he was
the respondent.
p Heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned SPP and
” S..’£§.Venkatareddy learned counsel for the respondent.
8. On careful scrutiny of the papers produced by
the prosecution, it is seen that the version of PW} in so far
as incident is concerned, has not been properiy supported by
other circumstances of the case. FIR has been_..lodged
belatedly while the incident has taken place at 2. on
14.11.1995 and the police station is at the distance’,
and the complaint has been lodged. in th_e.lpolice»
5.30 pm. almost after about 15 from :.tin.ie-i_of
occurrence. If at all, the ‘heinouvs ioffencel
by the respondent, she Wouldyhayer.imrnediatelyflodged the
FIR in the early ‘Uh’-nder;htlic;-cit’cumstance, delay of
15 hours to lodge Police is fatal to
the case lithe:f?.;prols’ecution..””Further, there is no injury
caused “has not been examined by any
doctor to”gsh’ow that injuries are caused on her. The
neihgl1b.o.urvers PW1, PW3 and PW? and PW9 have
‘ snot, the case of the prosecution. The Witnesses
” Wlilo havééj supported the prosecution version are only parents
and relatives.
On re–appreciation of the entire materials on record,
we hold that the prosecution has not been successful in
bringing home the guilt of the accused. Therefore, we do not
‘a
%
find any compelling circumstance to convict the”‘respa.1:1€.ent«,
Hence, the appeal fajis and the same is .
%sak:
.% k;}UDGE