Karnataka High Court
Chandramma W/O Mruthyunjappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2009
Bench: Manjula Chellur, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
1.
EN THE RIG}-I COURT OF KARNATAKA,
PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28?" DAY OF MAY, 2009
PRESENT
THE HON' BLED MRS. JUSTICE MANJULA c1e§~sL;_i;,Vr:'3j'v_;{'.;' "
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N:?'Jvsi_$a;s'QPAI;A":
CRIMINAL APPEAL N§::,A57/2066.; * ' V
BETWEEN
Chandramma, V -
W/0 Mruthyunjappa, _ ;
55 years. ; '
Mruthyunjayanjaa, ' 'V 2 :
S/o IVE3.L1(I1iC;11.'fl7'l'O1'1;i:":I'E:'l§V,3}J§1,"' "
. Man} uinatéh,
S / o MI'uthyu'njap.pa.~, S
2E3§ye.:ufs. '- V' V '
" . are1E3./oliambaiiianahalli,
' '1'umiv;gri:*a.iuk_.
. .. APPELLANTS
[Thfoughv Inspector General {Prisons}
Bangalore 'Central Prison,
flVParappana Agrahara, BangaI0re--560 100}
E V' ",:'{By'ES:1"i. Prasanna Kumar, Amicus Curiae for Appellant Nos. 2
ea
Appeal against Accused No. 1 is dismissed as withdrawn on
_29:.8.2006)
AND
The State of Karnataka.
By Turnkur Rural Police,
Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore--1. RESPONDENT
(By Sri S13. Pavin, SPF.) This Criminai Appeal is filedpreferred"i§y=e..ti"ie"' through the Superintendent, Central: E-ariga1oreV,:'v-egfgainst the judgment dated 22.2.2OQ5_ passecinby Additionaig Sessions Judge, Tumkur in S.'CEi\Eo. M;-Ce[20Q:C)v_: the appellant/ accused Nos. 1 andg___._2uV:'~fo1=,the'offenceVvipunishable under Section 302 r/w'3{£':g«¥PC--'_VAan:d V1ac_cu:s'ed Nos." 1" to 3 for the offence punishable under sectfncffe' 493:z_2;,= .3o2_r--;s 1?/w 34 IPC and under Section ._the Pr0jfi'i.bifiOi1'VACt and sentencing accusedtVNos§ ' 1ei.5;a_.Vnd.V::i.Z:V itojundergoiv rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine -- each and in default to suffer imprisonrnenttiforx'?,'4V1n()*nt}_;.s by each of the accused for the offence"punisi1.abVIe'1under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and ...,/egntencing 'vi--aCCused' "" "Nos- 1 to 3 to undergo rigorous ifnf)1'isonrner1«i; for 3 years and to pay a fine of 133.5000/-- each Sand'i.._1_n suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months by each,__of vti1e_;a'ccused for the offence punishable under Section »__493A re/flu: 34 use and sentencing accused Nos. 1 to 3 to igundiergo"rigorous imprisonment for 7' years by each of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304»~B r/w 34 HVIPC and sentencing accused Nos. 1 to 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to Stiff€I' simple impi'isonme'nt for 6 months by each of the accused for the offence punishable under Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Substantive sentenceVV.sl1_a1el=_p run concurrently.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for _H_ea1ri.ngA.l.:tl1is Marguza Chellur J., delivered the rol1(e§win:g; ' 3 JUDGMEN'i":__ ' This appeal is filed by 1 to 3/appellant Nos. 1 to 3'mitiaiiyllaridljlater on appellant No. 1 ._ Smt. Chandramma withdrew an application.
Therefo1*e.h"llVwet;are?"concentratingVfllonly on the other two appell.an't.s and 3 ie, Mr. Mruthyunjayappa and Mr. Manjunatha. S V V' _ :{2.i,.A'-Thepfactsl th'a't'led to the filing of the appeal in brief are _narra'ted'-as iiiiderz ll'._.lhllThel.'decAeased Shobha, who is none other than the l'._pdaught~eVrfof P.Ws. i and 2 was given in marriage to appellant A Mr. Manjunatha, who is the son of appellants/ accused 'Nos. 1 and 2. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the marriage between Srnt. Shobha and accused No.3, Smt. Shobha started living in the matrimonial home at Kambathanahalli village of Tumkur Taluk along with her husband and in~1aws. On 18.8.1999 at about 7130 a.rn., she sustained burn_:"injuries in the matrimonial home and she was in1n1ediate.!j{r tai'<ejri--. hospital at Tumkur where she was first given' 'Iir'st:aid"rari~d iaterg she was shifted to Victoria Hospita1,:'»l3angaliore.ori.theearners in the evening. She under went treatment iiarlburvns ward at; Victoria Hospital and on 24.8.19u99.'tsuccuI'nbe_d to injuries as a result of septicaen1ia.,."":t..
3. On the datetofviherva,drn1i'ssion".[.to the hospital at Victoria:ViVl¥los'pit.{éIl, recorded her complaint at Ex.P.~<i, declaration under Section 32 of thetIr_v1diari"F,\tf1'.<:ie_r1'r.:e Act' the prosecution. According to the ~.pros'ec~ution,i._ during"------thVe marriage negotiations there was a §1.,u.;fo'r* cash, gold chain, gold ring and other gold to the bride and bride groom as part of dowry in 'V._connection with the marriage between accused No.3 and A {deceased Shobha. According to the prosecution, it was complied / is with by the parents of the deceased and they were living cordially for some time, but later on. the alleged harassment and ill-treatment commenced with the demand of additional amount as dowry from the parents of the deceased. According to the prosecut1'on, this was informed to the kith the deceased at her parental house and they labl"e--l..lt_ol' comply with the demands of the deceased',«Wl1ic1<1're:sulted*:in the 9 7 ill treatment and harassment to thedeceasedlatthe: haindsof the accused. Ultimately, it wentyltoy the e~xtenot:"ofl her with kerosene and S€tlLl171_,':'3.V.l'1€I"vA2Et'l5l'c'.llZ:"t' the rna'l;'1'inionial home on 18.8.1999.
4. An U_nnat'_u.ra1 Report_ucar;1ell to be registered in death report. Earlier to that, a 'case came'allto_llbe_:llregistered on the statement of the deceased Sh"obha._for lthe""offences punishable under Sections «--.;30'"/"vi: IPC and"Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition to the death of the deceased, the aforesaid otlences \yere__ailtered to the one punishable under Sections 302, 993048, 4v9'{3All'PC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition A "'~Subseque11t to the registration of UDR 357/1999, during the course of investigation. the Taluka Executive Magistrate as per EX.P.2 under Section 174 C1'.P.C., recorded the statements of the kith and kin of the deceased, neighbours of the matrimonial home of the deceased, apart from drawing.g'the spot mahazar and seizing certain personal belongin:gsV"'*of. "the deceased. Though initially a case came to be relgiste1=ed out--post police station of Victo1'i.a" Hospital, xivras if transferred to the Tumkur Rural Poli§«g_ fiigationllwhere 172/1999 came to be register:ed..ogand vi:x.1:>,:22""~--ie""the 9'iR;' initially the regular police AV.i11itiét§'p'~.. gA.,(;1*inii11.;1.1 ...,gtction and investigated into the deathlof terming it as dowry death and later anti took up further investigation. A charge sheet came to1,V_be-filed completed the investigation in the matter," were taken into custody on
25.ag.;§;999. a d'eyg"e1tef the death of the deceased. After them before the Committal Court. the Committal the matter to the Sessions Court as the matter V V' _ was"'exclu'sive'ly triable by the Court of Sessions. The following Tchaorges were framed against the accused persons to which the have pleaded not guilty and therefore the trial was ' V. ..t,_aken up:
"CHARGE I} That you A.3 Manjullatha, being the husband of the deceased Shobha @ Seveeramma. you A.3 Chandramma being-=._ the mother and you A2 Mruthyunjayappa:'-«._T'~t. being the father of A-3 along__;"'i2vith~..._:
absconding A4 being the relative of ll thus related to the husband ofyth-le deoeased Shobha, in furtherance 'ee.co;nrnof1:"'e-... intention, subjected.rt1j_1e deceased Sholbha to cruelty' to wit, fron1l.y§..2.5.6.lv.995l 'yon torturing her__ to brln.glll:A'add'itional "dowry? of Rs. 10,000/-,V al_lmt;ralh'~-andutensils and you all thereby offence puniyslialble PC and lclognizance, 2}" at about 7.30 an}.
in--.Iurt.heranoe'ot" the common intention you 1A1 to to commit the murder of the l dee.easedv ttttt Hlshobha in the village ll'wt_aKara_t>ajl;hanahalli. you A} dragged the Vldeeeased to kitchen and poured kerosene 'and you A12 lit fire and closed the doors and z W _. :due to burns sustained. she died on 24.8.99 and you all thereby committed murder of Shobha and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 1'/'W 34 IPC and within my cognizance.
3} That on 24.8.1999 deceased Shobha died due to burns and the death was Within seVen""---- years of her marriage with you A3, and you.
A.1 to A3 along with A4 in iurtheraniele'oi"V:-..:JQ .»_. common intention had subjected__y'her':f,o ' cruelty or harassment i1'1""e'on.ne'otionylwith demand for dow1y and=.&yO.'_t1~'Vall'1'~_tl*1€i;eby committed an offence punishalole u /S 'di$VO.%i_3B r/w 34 IPC and withine«{n'y cogni2:an'ee..f.= 4] That you A:1'.,._ly_o of rnarfiage of A3 along with deceased had taken ol':f:.;Rs.i1--(V).'()'()(')_/"--"'golden chain, golden FiIlg,Vv'.§I.UH%'V' theyyllparents of the deceased A3 thereby committed an'~ offenee Apunishable under Section 3 of Dowry "Pr,Q_h_ibition Act, l96l and within my A , cognizance.
' 5'} after the marriage of you A3 with " 'the deceased Shobha on 25.6.1995, you A} " .V__33to A3 along with absconding accused No.4, were demanding additional dowry from the parents of the deceased Shobha to the extent of Rs.l0,000/~, T.V., alrnirah and utensils and you A} to A3 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961 and within my cognizance.
6} Lastly, you A1 to A3 had taken dowryfiof Rs.40,000/-- golden chain and ring *-
time of marriage of you A3 with the..deceascd . Shobha and subsequently, "after V You did not return the and golden articles to thel'-pa1'ents'v:cjf:
deceased and youl'V"'i'i»i£§g1» to l}~'\.3l committed §.:i. offence l}--'urii$hab«le "=un'der Section 5 of the {Jewry i--P:+ouhii§iiicn_Act, 1961 and vVit1'_1i11 rflY.col.£i§_I1izai.47,C;:5x
--_ that you be tried by me i' on the abloyesaid charges."
In supplort of the-. case of the prosecution, the prosecution in all exaxnined "witnesses and got marked 213 exhibits apart from fi1a'1'-}g1'ng'v4l"'1,:niAatlerial objects. The defence did not let in any evidence..__"exr*ept marking Exs.D.i_ to D12 - portions of the h Vhstaiiernents of the witnesses.
The learned trial judge on appraisal of the entire ..e\.ridence on record convicted accused No.1 and accused No. 2 10 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34, 498~A, 304-8 r/w 34 IPC and so also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. So far as accused No.3 -- the husband of the deceased is concerned. he was convicted for all the 'offences except offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. As above, initially all the three convicted this appeal, however appellant No. 'hperglappezal it during the pendency of the appeal and Courts, 1ias"peifn1"ittedp her to withdraw the appeal her the consequences of such witiidrawalloli'e--:t.hell'appea1.l
6. Heard the Sri P. Prasanna Kumar SB. Pavin, learned State Public Plrosecultor:i'or_'the« 7, The V1earned'._arf1icus curiae, Sri Prasanna Kumar for accu'sed"Nos. 2 and 3 brought to our notice pcertain 'which according to him. would create doubt in the caselllof the'§;_i*dsecution. According to him, the statement of not the first statement of the deceased giving out the A or the genesis of sustaining the burns. The earliest ' statement was before the doctors at Tumkur Hospital where it 11 was disclosed as a case of stove burst and therefore, the last statement of her Ex.P.él~ is nothing but a created document at the hands of the investigating agency in collusion with the kith and kin of the deceased. lie further contended thatda-ft_'er._ her admission to Victoria hospital at 3.40 pin. on 1_:_..sh«e must have been given some sedation a_r1~d--»..there~fo1<e, statement said to have been recorded at 'p,'m.. cannotcbe her Voluntary and true statem'ent. Herice, reliance cannot bled placed on Ex.P.4 and finally he to oiii=.n_loitice the contents of Ex.P.13 -- 'Admission' Re'gister'. tier oflfact, based on the material on record, curiae contends before us that,;_it limits: liavei Lbe:en"a:si.iieid.al attempt on the part of the dece--ased bear children within 3 years of the marriage_ and that it cannot be a homicidal death as put fortheiby the AApVroseciit;io11. Alternatively. the learned amicus 'ii curiae argues based on the contents of EX.P.13 'Admission iii"--'f3'cllZl€l1lL record of Srnt. Shobha maintained by the 'Burris' 'w'Vard, Victoria Hospital that the statement given by JtheVc deceased Shobha prior to recording of Ex.P.4 indicates only it . mot?::--er»in--laW as an assailant and not accused Nos. 2 and 3. = .. lierefore, according to him, based on Ex.P.4- the trial Court was 12 not justified in holding accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty of the charges levelled against them.
8. As against this, the learned State Public Prosecutor, Mr. SB. Pavin, contends that so far as the de4rnan,d~.,_and payment of dowry at the time of the marriage, the evidence is of the kith and kin of thE§HCl€C€aS€C1",'iiiEi?1i.¢i1v::iS'-bCftiT'E} the Court and the defence was not :a_bie,shak.e.,.th-eiri Vexridevnce in the cross~examination. Simflaijly, hecontendsb' that whatever. misery the deceased has undefgcae at the-tiiatrinlionial home must have been within 'the'a~knovv1edVge._V_ofi'the kithiand kin of the deceased as they are the jvvvhom the deceased ShobhafcoiildA.tiave.'3fiarrat.ed theihiardship she was undergoing in the therefore, their evidence though they are kjithand. Vofiutmost importance to substantiate " «the V1eve11ed'against the accused.
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPCAL"-i.s coviiceriied, he relies upon the statement of the deceased a rristter of fact at Ex.P.4 and contends that the said gV."stai;e_nient having come into existence in the presence of her _h_f1sband -- accused No.3 in the hospital like a complaint has to 13 be relied upon as it was not recorded as a dying declaration initially when it was recorded. So far as non disclosure of the entire details of the offence in question, sustaining of _ burns according to the learned SPP is not at all i'a.tjal.,:._to"'--,Vthe prosecution as the doctor was not required to:~--enc{uvire, fir:-ate.» details or genesis of the burns a1"i_d....r,ecord'.Vth'e -the,' "
accident register. Therefore, according to" iii'rn,1the reasoningafor arriving at the final opinio11"oi"*---the trial Coti,rtlrw,,is«--..,lqasedl appreciation of evidence. Hence,:Vllth_ere is need to interfere with the said judgment oi7_t'heAti~,ial;Cvo _
10. The point that"Wclrld"ar:ise forplpllonr consideration is whether the"i'j.u'dgrn*ent_orporderllllof conviction warrants any interference at our ll. ItlwotzldgLuelappropriate to consider charge Nos. 4, 5 ..,and..':_j6'l°~tQ_start with'se--«that the other offences, which occurred three" the marriage, could be dealt with later on. 12.5' far as these charges are concerned, we have the gle1,{idencev.o;f P.W.1 -- mother of the deceased, P.W.2 -- father of " ,.l'the~»d.-eiceased, P.W.8 -- maternal uncle of the deceased, P.W/l -- 14 elder sister of P.W.l i.e.. aunt of the deceased, P.W.5 -~ friend of P.W.1 and P.W.7 »« Virupakshappa, who said to have purchased two plots from P.W.l to meet the expenses of the marriage between accused No.3 and the deceased Shobha. N
13. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who a1?e"nf,one_V'other than the parents of the deceased would indicate. was a demand for dowry in the fomtp of:..cash1_a"s._'well.'-as«,gold ' ornaments. According to the.e'rhot:heV:'t.;_lEs.50.cO{3O;/.4 dcashldwastp given to accused No.3 as dow1~y*..arid_ spelnt TRsVfl,é'{J,O00/~ for performing the marriage: dhobha. H'AShwe also says how the money was raised ti:-o_roeet't;h.-e.Vexp~en_ses by selling two plots i$.'E:b'6;'l';:i'I"if::3'3i""1t tohhiention here that, though she did not give all the"details_:o'f dowry given to the deceased at the time of _rnarri"-age. in"the,eXamination~iso~chief, more details were the cross'-~cXarnination which would go against the _c'leVfence§'i-Vinother words the prosecution was able to establish the payment of dowry in the form. of cash and gold lvthornanaents in the C'.I'0SS--CXe1fI1lI".1et't'lO1'i of the witnesses. P.W.2 A ficorrobporates the evidehce of his wile regarding the payment of ' cash and also gold ornaments dowry to accused No.3 and 15 deceased Shobha. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 who are also kith and kin and close friends of the family corroborate the evidence of the mother and father of the deceased Shobha. There may be some minor discrepancies with regard to the actual quantnnfof cash of dowry and also time of payment of these accused. The substantial fact whether thereytfas deniarid 'far dowry and compliance of the dowry be Minor discrepancies bound to happen. because of lapse 'of"t.irr1eg between time of the marriage a"nd"'*the date of _evidence before the Court. The fact .1'c'11iainsf'llth?«i:4 WELIVSH" démarld and compliance by payment also jewellery as part of the '_The§.:evi:d.er1ce.VAo*f would indicate that thoughthe Rs. 1500/" to Rs.2000/--, at the time of perfo1*rning .lthe»-- of accused No.3 with the _ deceyas-led;.they f"so._1_dfsite:s to P.W.7 to meet the expenses of the marriage' .and*--.also to pay money dowry. Therefore, the to establish charge Nos. 3, 4. 5 and 6.
i='~4:'.A':_T1'l€1'] coming to the harassment or iii treatment with A frefgard. to the demand of additionai am.our.1t as dowry on the l ground that what was given at the time of the marriage was not 16 sufficient, again the evidence of mother and father would play an important role. Therefore Eflhree or four years after the marriage, the deceased Shobha started demanding an additional cash. T_V., tape recorder and almirah as demanded by in-laws. it is borne on record that__jtheeideceas_ed"
was all along with her husband in the 'Ccmp'l.any 'inr--1aws ii in the matrimonial home. ApVparen"i1y:..t¢f1e deceased having any source of income andjshbe did inot--.ojvmlVlanjf"property to comply with the demancispr satisfy the-..wants of her husband and in--laws to and articles of additional «x';oV"llapp{oach only her kith and par parents would have discusscfil their close relatives like P.Ws. 3 and 4 andanalsol i.e., P.W.5. Therefore, the evidence of éliarxd 5 also play an important role to evidence of P.Ws. i and 2. The evidence of' ll-',Ws__.A.AI to show that for some time every thing was fine"l:=etw_'een «accused No.3 and deceased and when the demand Jior Vi these ll additional articles and cash corximenced, her life . 'became miserable at the hands of the deceased. When ..de-ceased Shobha was not able to tolerate the ill treatment, she 17 naturally narrated in detail the misery before her parents. Therefore. the best piece of evidence on these aspects would be the evidence of P.Ws. i and 2. which is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5. The evidence of theseVViivi.triesses definitely indicate that on several occasions, the_d'eceas_ed had approached her kiih and kin narrating and'"illVb'__ treatment at the hands of the accitised As a matter of fact 15 days prior to T T T V
15. The last occasion stayed for longer time than carne to take back his wife, only after advising:T' to matrimonial home. to see her daughter in the house of even at that time, she narrated cruelty and h=arassnien':_, catised to her. She also narrates her Vvr.con1;i1Vy"'*with the demand of the accused which t1lVti«ni'atel}t_«to'ol§:away the life of her daz,z.ghter. Therefore. there is larriple eVi'd'erfce on record indicati1'1§j that it was not on one or lgtwo occasions but there was cormnuous ilhtreatrnent at the fljhandsof the accused to the deceased for additional dowry. The trial Court was justified in answering these three points in 18 favour of the prosecution. We do not find any material in the crossexarnination of these witnesses to doubt the veracity of the evidence of these Witnesses.
16. Coming to the cruelty and torture as aireadyéistated above, on several occasions. deceased had gone__;tfo'pi'ea.d5 her kith and kin to comply with the demand of dovvly. made by the accused but were notf_<::ompii_ed;--_p 'w.aS.. i3.Q'1VZ'.(_).1'_ltl€ ' but on several occasions the9r.e1ativcs of thesddecease€;l made to know the torture given in the.Iiiatrir1i'oniai home. in all probability. mother"o_i' the d'eceas:e'd..was her and then in order to see that her some peace of mind in the niiatririiomal h"5onie.W_"
17. Nos.2 and 3. we have ample evidence non record that deceased but for the burns and consequencesof burns i.e., septicemia, wouid not have died. In othezjword's,._ it.t.jwas not an unnaiimai death. The defence tried to b'ring;. 'one' record severai defences by suggesting to the h ypiwitnessesitthe kith and kin of the deceased to impress upon the . that deceased was not at all happy for not having a S"
V -»c}iii_d inspite of she being married for 4 years. According to the 19 defence. she was unhappy and her life was miserable. therefore, she must have comrnitted st.:icide due to depression. There is also another defence that she was mentally disturbed and therefore. she was not behaving properly with her hushalnd. iri~ laws and she must have met w'it'h this tinnatural_¢'deai:h_V"on account of her mental depression. One more Hdei"ence_f.'ta'ken*by the defence is that she S1.iSt.ai1'1€d1:.bu1fiiS ;d'ue'1'to._.:st.ove"ht;rst accidentally on 18/ 8/ 99 at about: 7.36.. A a.--rn.. in rnatriirnonial home. No doubt, the defence lis_:eni.it:1ed'*E:_o"ta_.§;:e inconsistent defence but there 1nusi."'oe i'e21soiiahleness inlthat" and if she was mentally sound. susta11i1ng;vaceid.en.ta.1zburns is possible. cannot be ruled '5.i~+;-._ "B_u'1asl'i--s:% 'coinmit'.t:ed suicide for not having children would indicate =t,h"at she was a normal thinking person and Vai sen.sit1ve"'person too. This is quite contrary to the other by the defence. However, there is nothing oni'-r_eeo"rd°v1;o ws'ii'ow that she was depressed for not having chi1d'ren..__'or -any rnaterial iiidi.(éaii1'ig her unsoundness of mind . if ' --. : during lifetime.
20
18. Then coming to the defence of stove burst, some attempt was made by suggestzing to the Investigating Officer that at the earliest point of tin'1e deceased disclosed before the doctors at Turnkur Hospital that she sustained burns _in._a'stove burst. But this remained only a suggestion to and nothing is brought on record. If such rnate1'ia.1..w4asuavailable "top the defence. definitely they xvcmild material {tom the hospital atg'fL1i'11ku*-f. "V-E3ver1,.-ifythereliwas record of stove burst. there is V'1'n21teria}._ohefecord to show that in the matrimonial vhome ol the *d(j:cei'a.sed they yvere cooking food on a stove. In that views oilthe n--ia_tter,. we cannot rely on such defence. ;}j2>en"otl':erwise:. 'wh'a--t,"--w_asf'the condition of the patient when th::"'vhAi'si'o'ry_Voiitiie burns came to be recorded at Tumkur Htospitall' is".:al.--s:o"~._oi; much relevance. Apparently, husband and o'i:herV'r1ei';ghbt>L.u:gtook her to the Govt. Hospital burns. But who gave the history at the Govt.
Hos-pit;al'v4:'is.yyiVjr1-it'before us. In all probability. immediately after sust2::.ininTg' 839/o of burns she must not have been in a position Vito. talk before she was given any first aid. It must have been plnaturally, the husband who could have disclosed the history of 2} the burns. Therefore, we cannot place much reliance on such material even if it were to be brought before the Court.
19. The records of Victoria Hospital show the time she came to the Victoria Hospital it was afternoon and before that she was shifted f_r.nrn_:'*l1er:i7il'lage' Turnkur Hospital after giving t.rea'tmen:t; doctor who is examined as P.W:. £5 wo'tiAld=.i.ndicat"e.that she"waso alert, well oriented and coiiscionlsuiwrilien she. the statement Ex_P.-4 and his endors:ernent"d'i's." at the "top of the document. Apparently, the deceased to septicemia on 24/ 8/ 1999, thei'efore, sine subsequent to sustain;ingHo'f'htirn Eirfenvwhen the statement of the deceasednwasl probability, the investigating agency _V has taken t':_1e""'statemeni, as a complaint of the 'w"'vdeccasecl--;.A lBAased"'o'n*"this complaint, Victoria Hospital police _re'gi,stcre'do_p'a.'ca_se-pfor offences punishable under Sections 307, of other offences under Dowry Prohibition Act. casegsheet maintained at Victoria. Hospital indicates that 'Cfshpe "was alert, well oriented and conscious when she was admitted to burns ward and even the out patient record /\\i 22 indicates that. when she was taken to the casualty ward this was her state of mind. Ex.P.13 indicates that she herself gave the history of burns to the doctors at Victoria Hospital. Whether the doctor P.W. 15 was present at the time. oi""rec.ording this statement is not clear. It is clear that if the_--statet'ne1it'was.' to be recorded in the form of a co'n.1pl.apint, endoi'.01' . L' doctor is totally irrelevant. There is no'"devia;ti_on to 'ati3tgre'at extent as to what was the initia1'----.stat.ernent Vnm.g_:1e'..i1uy_cc1;e;%. 'I'i1e* fact of presence of kith and kin in the hospital would not persuade us Vtaclpipnfe tljiat "i:hefAé'~mfas pressure on her at the hands of kith amt'-v.tti'n to =ipn\'?olve"'~.or"'implicate all the accused because _vt_tasfvery"""n1u.ch present beside her at lithe; tinieVur_, the statement. Therefore, we cannot sus--p'_ect the ktth and kin of the deceased to imp1i.(}tat:eeA1,he acciiisled. I ' ._Zt)_t and 20 are the xerox copies of the accident regi.s*ter. V As--.perVthese documents, it was the self disclosure by 'V the patient and the history to the effect that burns sustained by "_'s.hertiawere" due to the n1other~in--£aw pouring the kerosene and . her on fire on I8/8/I999 at about. 8 ant. and in the 23 bracket, F1'c311'11L*' oi' the-.' rziother in law as Chandrarnrna is also given. Even at 1~1x.}'-'W13. when she was admitted to ward, she was conscious and niatle a statement that she refused to get out of the ':!:<;=1'1 her niother~in--1aw poured kerosene on her and set 1"1{?1' 2-ahlzayzcr at about 8 am. at her r'esid§311_ce Kambathanahalié \-'1%ia;_,_{c%, 'I'Lm1kL11* Dist. in a11_th,e4s'eV1*ec'(3rds. she also gives the '?m=~%'er'iiis of the t.reatnié_:nt at 'Fhisddwould ' only go to S1"l{')&-V t:t':;.:: slie was alert. wherishe gaveAthese'*.de'tai1's in the casualty \.vard mid also bu'r:1s~ward daft, _VictoI'ia_I~Iospital.
21. Then <.'o:'nir1g .t.'c3'~,,the.'Vc0Vr1tefi._V'tSVnof.Ex.P.4. in detail she gives what; \*a<:*3':.= the 1'1'1ar'riage_V talks., to the marriage, given to the husband as dowry, in the company of her husband and iVr'}."V].E-ft'-']V'.Qk3"."'~Qffi-Vii4i.ig.:i.i'.:'§tiéftg" for dowry etc., and so also FYI u*g't'i<;."~--:~:.«2'a1.rirhonia1 home with the demand of so far as the incident that Occurred on "V..,18/8/i£%QiGt :-m::~.; that at 7.30 am. her mother--in--law, ":d:'i_a.the'i'A¢in--1aw anti 1":m~;E::>;,11'zd found fault with her for not bringing ' enough Z(I1OI1(?};' as; <"i:"£'i§2.1E1Ci€d by them. It is further stated that _ K 25 father--in--1aw on 18/8/1999 in setting her ablaze. Deceased herseif has given a clean go by so far as her husband is concerned.
23. When once the prosecution is able to ingredients of Section 302 of1PC against one rnotherwindaw of the deceased, it '3tra1sb:ir1'e1'eya'nt Court to consider the case, tulderr. A$ect.io11jb',L30:4~.,9 Accused Nos.2 and 3 dc%fi:1iteE'y«.Var'e ilotdpartr "incident causing burns to the 1&999.d"fherefore, they cannot be convicted undder-i.d"Sectioo IPC. Similarly. when once _n1ot',h«er_;ii1~1a€§I/ A<:§§.nsed"NaJ.VVi' was found guilty of an offence1"VtitindisnvaiblexfvLindderi" Section 302 of UPC, question of finding gL1iif.y: Section 3044-3 of IPC would not arise. _ Therefoi*e,_t--he'--._t19i:;{i Court went wrong in convicting to'3"£*s--r~oi'fen.ce punishable under Section 304~B C' V "'24._ .C«-n apprec,iati.on of the entire evidence, we are of the "._VOpi1'1iO1J that the trial Court was justified in convicting Accused V~.Cji'~'!os."i~.¢to 3. So far as c:o1'1\a4-'icE.ion of Accused Nos.2 and 3 for 26 offences punishable under Section 498»A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is sci aside.
25. Accordingly. we allow the appeal partly. WeVcon_firm the conviction of the Acctused Nos.2 and 3__j"fo:'fj_~o.ffe:;ces punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the VPf:()hibidiVionV Act and so also Section 498~A of IPC,' Iria_{ri1f;gu'regard fo. .:_iIi'.e they have spent in custody. there is E}V(;-Ahfléfid E;o.a'7;ii;e:f t'he"jpe'1'io'dq of sentence imposed.
26. The corivin:-iE.io;-1 Act'-L_1_seEi~.A No.2 for offences punishabie under._Sectio13.s.:.302':01';also 304-13 is set aside. The (toniiurictiloh :}'--\cc§=;1';s*'ed4_NoV.?;for-»an offence punishable under Secti_o11 34 of IPC is set aside.
The "apoei1a1i"_s/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall have the V' §5en§:"fi+.- c§i::se§¢i.«;_g1a 428 of C1-.ii>.c. is \%N\ N \ _ ,_"':.'4h::-:_Vo'.ffi(:e is directed to communicate this order to 'ihe C().*1(f(:'i:{'1'i€3d prison.
27 Rs.5,000/~ is fixed as fee payable to the Amicus Curiae, who has assisted this Cour: on behalf of Abztused N0s.2 and 8.
udgé Nsu /mvs