The State Of Karnataka vs Sharanappa Chandram Gunaki on 26 February, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Sharanappa Chandram Gunaki on 26 February, 2009

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAxAW0=07,

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GuLBARGAf"*7*--}3

DATED THIS THE agru DA¥.QH Eeéﬁu%RT02dg9'T0
PRESh&i:2:n; * .uV  f.2 0
THE HON'BLE MR- Ju§TIoE ﬁ.g. SAB5AaTT}
THE HON'BLE HR. JueTiC:e§:s, pAoHuApURE

§TR£'LINAlg""£\;!E:9£1-3;L;'   22.092

BETWEEN:
The state"5f*KérnaEeka;-Q' 2"0 m APPELLANT/S
[By smt{YAﬁqradhafDesa;}.Aud1. S.P.P.]

AND:

_1, Sharenabpa ChehdramvGunaki,

*Aged 38 years,

0*o»OCG;VJ,Ey;Tin_Pvt. Firm.

2. Cheedrem2Jagedevappa Gunaki,
Aged 70oyeeTs,
Occf=Ag;iculture.

 "5J:2GangawWa,

~2W/oﬁvchandram Gunaki,
_ Aged 65 years, Occ: Household work,
'«*A;l are r/0. Nagthan village,

v ﬂgm?q' & Dist. Bijapur. m RESPONDENT/S

[By Sri.Baburao S.Mangane, Adv.) Date of Judgment reserved : 19.02.2009 Date of Judgment pronounced: 26.02.2009 Thia Crimiﬁal ﬁppeai i3 fiied u/S. 3?$£l} & (3) £x.P.C. by the State ?.?.. for the State graviwcxte graﬁt leave ta file an aygeai against the Judgment ﬁa@_G:d@§ of acquittal dt. 22.06.2835 passed by the _?C04jmfa2:".Track C0urt~I, Bijapur, iﬁ S.$. H0.29fOé, ﬂ'acquittiﬁg": the resychdeﬁtsfaccused for the offences pfuf$$,*,§§8w§f_§"302 rfw. Secticn 34 EPC. V~w. ' m 'V . = » 2 Thi$ CximinaiT Appeai hav:ﬁq« ﬁeeh.Theér§ aéd Hié3erVe§ for Juégment, thig day Pachhapgre J.,f prénGunéed the foiiowingz '» The State .has Chgilenqed iheQg$udqment and Grder acquitting thei réspondenﬁéx iér_"ﬁﬁe "charge underT Sections czgssa azzd 3c;1;:«.VV..:~--;»i€_a»;:v;.v._ sgctk:{s;§%34% i;§C' on a triai held by tééa Adﬁitionai sésegansﬁéaégé} Bigépur.

2. 3ans"unﬁ@céssaiy detaiia, the prosecution version _unfei@édudurinq*ghé tria; is as under:

:vSiddapp§»fP,W.§] ané his wiie Ganqawwa §?.W.2j are ﬁne ieaidéﬁts «é€j:Baqaikot and are the parants G: Bouramma ﬂdecaasgdj, V Tha marriage Sf Beuzamma ideceaaadj was 'parfaymad with accuﬁgd N©.2 absat 9 yaars $229: is her .ﬁe§ﬁhfA Eccused Nos.2 ané 3 are the iathar and mmthex at géccgsad Na.1 and it is the case of the pr03ecuti3m that an ui3.Q5."GU3 at abcut 8.QG a.m. the aacuaed pmurad kerosene anﬁ set iiza ts Bauramma iaeceasedg in their house sitﬁated endarsament from éhe Medicai Officer and a§ﬁ%: return to the Faiice Station, regisaerad Crime ﬁoi1§3?§@§3r»f0r the offence under Sections §98~A and 36? gffq 3% EEC é§@W§ent the compgasmt {$3.921} and Sijapur.

He visited. Nagathan Qiiiggg éﬁdlﬂiﬁ éﬁe preaence oi P.%s.3 and 9 heid tﬁéx s§§% té%Qa%ar' fﬁﬁpéiﬁ and at that time; he seized the k§:ﬂﬁé§§iﬁaﬁ; ﬁ$Ent sari, ash, match box and haif ﬁuﬂﬁﬁ-maﬁcn'%%ic% fM;Qé}i to 4] and Eaunﬁ the hause hoid aﬁ£é@éé§E§§ét%éra%.@§@: the scene Of occurrence. He recQrﬁed. §3%.£§ﬁatQ§%§tﬁ«5iW £he witnesses and at about

3.39 p.ﬁ3 *ﬁev §é§é§v§§gﬁt¥e. phone Call frmm Ehe Poizcg Statien abégt"§9ﬁxamma,Edeceasedj having guccumbed is the Vinjuzgégvnaﬁd hg infarmed this fact is the C.P.I. "7Eh¢re§ftefg the C.P.I. iP.%.12} continuad the investigation an£.'afﬁé:i*§h§?-éiszt ta the hospitai, heiﬁ tﬁe inqaest "§Ex.?2§§ _Qn.,€he body' of tﬁe decaaseﬁ in ther presance sf 3ff?;@.Z8 ﬁagletherﬁ. ,E@ entrusted the dead body far peat- *mér:em Texamiaatien anﬁ recarded the statements of same °»Qitné5se3 and directed the P.S.E. ta trace the accused. _fhereafter the C.?.l. [P.W.13§ aontinuad th@ invastigatiaﬁ and arreazed accused E0.1 aad as he had sugtained burn3, ha gen: him ta tﬁe hospitai far the §urp0s@ 0: tr§atment. He receiveﬁ the psstwmortem report £Ex.P2§j,ﬂE§ﬁ§ Vg;operty extract of the hcuse of the accuseﬁ iﬁxgééaj ﬁﬁﬁ §Qﬁt the seized articies to tha c§emica;*exam1ﬁéfl§ﬂd_%1§oBcb%5@ﬁéd the photographs sf tha segue lQfi:tﬁe @§&ﬁ§:§£§@ﬁ $ﬁd 'ﬁgs neqativ@s. He arrested th§JQ:heﬁ 3%cu§éﬁr$ﬁG»:%ceiveﬂ the injuryT ceztiiicate oi' accugﬁﬁ, Nari §t._£x;%2§ amd after completion GE the invg§£1gﬁﬁ:Q§;x§§ filed the charge sheet and 6% 28.69.2893 aite%f,receiﬁEx 6f" the F.S.L. report {Ex.P28j, §roduC@3 the $amé"bé§Qré"thé Court. During_t&a i@lv iﬁeﬂp§QS%cu:ion axamined P.Ws.1 to 18 and id tﬁeir éVi§@ﬁ@E got marked the documents EX$.PE to 3G and M.©s;§ ta 4." Zmfi§q tha couzse cf the ?r1ai, Ex.C1 and C2 were aisG_édmitt@d in the evidenca. The st&temeﬁts ?of°-:hé* aéﬁuééﬁ were recardea under Section 313 Cr.P,C. ?ﬁey"ga%a gqt'ﬁaﬁked Exs.ﬁE to 3, the contradictions in the ustatemgnt Q? [email protected].

'nTﬁ@ friai ceazt aftar hear1nqT the ?ubiiC ?rGsecmt0r an§V,a:so the iearned ceunsei for the accuseﬁ and an égpxétiatiam of the matariai en raaord, acquitted the 'R'améa$ed for Zhﬁ charge undar Section é98wé anﬁ 3&2 rfw. 3% 6 E95 and aqgrievad by the acquittal; the Statefhas preferred th:§ appeal.

3. ﬁe have heard the V;e&§ned"m£ddi. VState $&b;ic ?r05@Cutor for the appeiiant'3nd {he ieafne@V¢éﬁﬁsel E§r thé respondants.

4. The paint tﬁat ar:se_far aux c®n;id@rat:0n are; Wkether the Juégméhf aﬁﬁ 5;dér 0f acquittai cf the res§bnd@Qf§ i§:_ﬁ$@_c§a£§e under Sectians dI98-A g;~:;:i :i:3ﬁz.,"'r;'i:n::. _zV :>':*' is illegal and §erverée?; ERw. t H 5, 1 It 13 tug Cdniéhéion Qf the ieained Addi. State Pubiic ?r@Sa¢ator"that.tﬁere is ampie materia; an reccrd to prove ﬁhat it is the accu3ed i.e., tha respondents hereiﬁ, "1whb«psu:édAké:¢seae axd set fire ta the deceased and that the decéase§.i§a$' subﬁected to cruelty' anﬁ harassment for V"aii ihe tgmeé in héf iifewtima. She fuxtﬁer submits that Zfwihe acqﬁitta; of t§$ raspenﬁeats by' th@ Trig; Court is '4:i§§§a£ and pervers&. It is aiao her c0nt@ntiQa that there ".éEe §§rai dying §@$larati0ns befcra the parents 9f the _ﬁec@a$ed £?.WS.1 &nd 2}, the P.S.§. iP.W.11}, wag recaréed the sﬁatemeﬁt of the deceased 13 th@ presence sf the ﬁoctar §P.W.14§ aad 30 alga tﬁe deceased made a dying daciaratica befare the Taiuk Executive Ma istraﬁe 'PQW. <1 .

.2 '$g'~a3 per £x.P2§ and that the dying declazatioss made by thé--décea3ed are congisﬁent, cmgent and acqawtabial %$§ :§ﬁé§é§¢g3L $33 submits that the Trial Court cﬁmmﬁﬁiéd Q ﬁ%&%§E¢;iégai:tQ iﬁ acquittinq the reSp§hj§nfé*j'h§r§%§{"~w Iﬁ=' the circumstances, she §ubm:t$m? §Q',uaiiow Ht§é appeal by convicting the resp0ndenEs_fgrﬁtgéfqffgnces charged. ?er contra, Dtge §:e%rﬁéd_"$@uq$ei";ror {ha respandents submits that t§3 $§§éaéQ§aﬁ§@ éugtained 90% burns and she was in ghecﬁ ;§§§g wag .ﬁ@E ig; a condition to make any stateman$_ amﬁ E3é§§§zﬁ and: 2% are not at aii the declaration3 made byﬁthékéécaased and that the evidence Gf P.%s.1 ;aﬁd 2 w:§ﬁ régard to the orai dying' daciaration ;CaﬁnQt"béVac¢eptable as the ﬁeceasad was never conscicus &f§@i the incxéeﬁt. So aigo, it M5 his COH§§ﬁtiG§ that *Ex3.P:1 and.2§ are vaqme aad qenerai and recardinq &i tha f.&¥;gq deélaratlen by P.w.E6 13 iiiegai and imyroper and it "'wa3".§ot: in the presence 0: aka ésctar. Thezeésye ﬁe g¢bhtéﬁd3 that the dying deciaratiens said ta have been maﬁa *, by the ﬁeceased are no: worthy 3% acceptance. He submits V'that tée frial Ewart having taken iﬁtc caasldaratian aii 19 Q. The pereeai of zhe cempieint {$x.F21§W%e§eeie that P.W.l§ was present and he bee eineed Ex.Egi ﬁg ﬁeefﬁiia}. The peruse; oi zhe evidence at e.w.;4He§eyée§é_ §he: "ihe dying decieretion was made by tee eeeeeseeeeexﬁie_§feee3ee beiere P.W.11 eed she was :e;;y4¢e§sei0ug:§ee'éﬁé: ﬁe was present at the time when the said eeeiefeﬁiee wee recorded. it is he, who bed admiﬁzee iﬁe'deceqsed iﬁ the heepitai at 9.15 e.m. and the deceeeee.eee;beeeeﬁiete the hespita: by ene Smt. Kama;ge@§md {$ﬁ§e}:§ejgg;;heg° a witnese examined bﬁfgfe thg Cﬁaiﬁaﬁﬁgﬁé'¢§%E99e§59§"meitnese. ?.W.14 states that the deceeeeeﬁﬁad eeseeenee 96% oi the burns and he sent thelA:eqeie;i:en_"QEXWCEJ and ease sheet §EX.Czj in reepeet of the tfeeimeeﬁ.ei the deceased. Ehe eexusei Q:

_hi3 eyideﬁce iﬁrpher reveaie about the statement made by V£he'.deceeeee' in his presence and he states that the "pereeee pespeneibie fez tee incieent. She diee ie uh€ deﬁeaeee wee blaming her huebeed and earente-inmiawe as the -6- =3 heeeitei gt 3.15 p.mB on the same day. ﬂow, as eouie be *eeen__ﬁrem hie Crese*exam:eetien, he admits teat the "-eeeeased had not given the statement befere the Poiice .!%eiuntariiy. ﬁe, thée eemiesion ef §s%.14 cats the reets recerded by P.W.11. it is

5.;

0f the dying eeclaretien Ex.P2 further relevant te mete that iheuqh Ex.?2§, the dying £1 deciaration recorded by tag T&iak Executiéﬁg Magistrate {P.W.15§ bears the signature of the Dr5,{§fé%{gI*L§;$.1@j, this docter does not say[ anything asw»géqﬁr§s Vthé"g%y;nq deciaratism recarded by the Ta;u% €xééuE;v% Q§é§fQaté in his presence. It. is ».gn:of:¥ha:e V ﬁ§%ﬁ: §§%VV ?ubLic Prosecutor, whs candact@d "ﬁﬁe. easel héé go£ drawn the attention of this witm;-Es tﬁg s";gna£é;j&'e"VV§t £:i,:«:.E';=39, tile ﬂying declaration r%dc:dédi";b%D:f§$§_ Taiuk Executive Magistrate.

10. Fﬁrthé:}v thé°fﬁerusa1ﬂ 5f the dyinq aeciaration ,..~».~ Ex.P2§} sf Lh§{deéééséd $aid 50 have been recorded by the ?aiuk Exécutive }%q§st§§:e §?.W.16j iﬁ 311 a question aad answgr farm éné the aiswafs have been recarded in the hand- writing aﬁé wheréaswghe questians are printed asd ta the qaestiqn $0.3 as to the perﬁon who caused the injurieg, aha staées ghat bar hﬁsband i.e., Sharana§pa Sunaki, fatherwin~ wiaw i.é;, Shaaﬁram Gaﬁaki an§ methe§~i§~iaw 1.6., Gaﬁqawwa Q§uaék;[§ouréd kerssene and aat fir@ at 8.00 a.m. in their aha§s§*a:§Nagathan viliaga. The faiuk Executive Magistrate ha3 nit made any efiorﬁﬁ to know ﬁram the iajuréd abaut ﬁne "$péciﬁic Qvertwacts of each Q: tge accused. ii 13 reiavant

-to note that in the Qrdinary course, in case 2: tﬁé I5 ioak the match box and ii: :39 tire. 33 the ﬁé:§um5tances, the evidence 0: ?.w3.§ and 2 as w@ii, 1$§é§ g§L%g;p_to the prﬁsecutiea as ii: is in fun; game K@ﬁ§%£ Eﬁ§'ﬁeﬁiQQﬁ€§ in EX5.?21, 2§ and the {we othefmdyiagudec@§$§t§$§Sq' :%?%ft irem this, it is reievaﬁt to 39$? th$ﬁ{§;%3:i éﬁd Z are non@ eisa than the pareﬁé;{\Qf' {he 'd§@$é§é5"'%nd 5:9 the persons interested. in th$_l§bSénge hﬁﬁ. any} corroberation, iheix ev1§enc@ cannot'be"aCce§ted;f '*

13. Eﬁrﬁhez jmcreg gﬁ§§ughf'P.W.11 states about recarding oi~EﬁeT5§a€amgﬁt éf'tn§ deceased at about 11.60 a.m. an the game ﬁay, hf staﬁes that P.C. 6?8 is the perswn wha r@c¢rde&' the Vgtatémﬁhﬁ in big hanawwritimq and ibis consﬁabie ﬁa3*beéh éxamiaed as P.ﬁ.1Q anﬁ in $13 avidence thexe i3"mothiﬁg as sacs abeut recorainq t§e gtatemeat Gf * thé'&ééCe§ééd"*by' ﬁiﬁh further znare, the witnesses i.e., P{%$i4 t0 ?'ifeg; th@ neighbours cf {he accused have got ,suppc:téé _ﬁhe;'versian 0% th@ praaecutian and they have ". tarned hmgtiie.

",i$.f Thé grssacatism an examinatien Of P.Ws.3 and 9, Mwhg §%e attesting witneﬁses ta axe spat mahazar {Ex.P1} and Aﬁhé dactor iP.W.8}, wﬁa examined accused %0.l ior treatment V") .- .

-"x =Qf' the bUfﬁS and iﬁaued injury" certificate {EX.b1bj and s4 16 nawhere iﬁ the evidence 0% the pro3@cutiqn. §5@re is any axpianatiem as he h0wT accused No.1 had{ éu3taiH2$W_bu:n3. P.W.1S is the dactor, was Said th@~«$§3:3msrtem '3s',per €x.P2b and ﬁg statés that the burﬁﬁ wéré a§te--m¢:tem and the death was Que ta shocx, 'as A3 reguit Sf; thé* burns sustained. There were 90% af the bagﬁs-an the body sf the deceased.

15. £33.31 :o_W3V,areu»tﬁe °:g§tradictions in the Statement of §{Wy1'a5d EXlDIﬂ:@veaiS that since 4--5 years prior to §he_ i@Ciﬁent{x'accu£eﬁ N©.1 started consuming iiquar anéWEx,E2 réiatés to tﬁé driving out aﬁ the deceased from the hause aéd {ﬁg éecéased having stayed in the heusa GE ?.W3.l aﬁdV£ an§'at%3bcut 2 or 3 menths eaziéer ta the gncideni aC¢u3ed"HQ,;_nad some :6 the nousa :0 caii ﬁe: and with"a_warn:ng that they had sent the daceased ta th@ hause §or' giving 'ed§cati0n. Ex.B3 is tha statemenz Qf ?.W.;, cf :hé aéﬁﬁsedjéﬁd retained their grand chiiéran witﬁ them '?

ufxhérein ha States beﬁare the Pailce aha: the hasbamd of 3&9 dadgaaed set fire and all the accu$ed ran away iram the V"3p0t?a§d ?.%.1 states in his evidence zhat Q9 hag net maae ",a§y statement a3 §er £x3.ﬁ1 to 3. 5Q, 53 diacusséd by us, with regard is {ﬁe vaqué and genera; statement mad@ :<%§f 17 deceased about P.Ws.11 and 16 by way of deciaration and in View of the contradiction [Ex.D3J, the gyiaén§§5j§s by the prosecution is not consistent, coqenta and. acceptapie. Considering the serious condition of the decéased and the evidence of P.W.14 that Vthetidecéasedtﬂdidz ﬁat' dive any statement to the Police 'ahdg it 'is vthereatter that the Tahsildar {P.W;l6] recorded jthes dyind "declaration and P.W.l4 does not say rahythind QasV regards the dying declaration recorded j3f"§§WHi§ and dd] the absence ctr any specific overtcacts adainst each ot the accused, a serious doubt arises as redards the ccnoiicity of the accused in the crimeim Furthoﬁ @or§, in the case sheet at Ex.C2, there is clear mention ahouﬁ the deceased havinq burnt herseif. It goes_contraryVto-the Version of the prosecution. Hence, Vxwe are of the opinion that the materiai placed on record by the,hrosecution for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC is not at all sufficient.

iv, 16. "c,The perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2 h:'reféaLsﬂfthat though the marriage was performed about 9 u=years}prior to the incident, accused No.1 and the deceased

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court