Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 23 March, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANOAEORE
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH
PRRESENT
THE HONBLE MR.JUsIIcE>AI§.sREEI;EA}§ RAD" _ 1' I
AND _ ' A
THE HONBLE MR..J..Us'I'ICE"E.V. 1.
CRIMINAL 1 I0S"O--E2_O:o6':'f§
BETWEEN: % _ ,
MANJUNA'1'HAPATIL_v"'A._VV _ I
CON NOE658, €;EN'I'RAI_. 11=.RI_ 'ON;_ I
_ F" I A ...APPELLANT
[By
AND:
"STATE O.E'KAR1§ATA- KA
- _ _f%_jEYpAVANAGERE~RURAL POLICE
RESPONDENT
"IEy~Isri;EI§z§VANI SINGH, SPP) "'IiIIIs CRL.A PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT/CONVICT/ACCUSED THROUGH THE SUPDT. CENTRAL PRISONBELLARY; AGAINST THE JUDGMENT VDT.15.1I.05 PASSED BY THE ADDL. S.J., FTC--I, DAVANAGERE, IN S.C.NO.52/O5 -- CONVICTING THE A OFVFFCONVICTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498--A AND 302 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 3 YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.5000/-- I.D., TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OF F ENCE P/U/S.498--A OF IPC AND FURTHER SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND TO PAY A FINE %/ OF 5000/- I.D., TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.302 OF IPC. BOTH SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.
This appeal coming on for hea1fh'fg' KSREEDHAR RAO.J., delivered the followingyzfigt ' - JUDGMEN$fA One Smt. of the accused. They were to incident.
The accused had illicit --._Sudha»PWi. The deceased was o;3'p.csingVV'to saidjillivcitzrelationship and the accused .l;7i_gke Therefore, he was perpetratin"gw..cru:~:l,ty decezfsed and he used to beat her. :V7,i_"1'1€1'€ .."frequent quarrel in that regard between 'theitaccdusead. deceased. _' 32.. On 4'. there was quarrel between the accused deceased. The deceased left the house and went gaway. made efforts to trace the whereabouts of the«..dec__eased by going to his in--laws house and the deceased was notwfound. The accused also made enquiries with his it «..b'rothers»in--law. The accused found the deceased near her whiouse around 10.00 pm. The accused physically dragged the deceased near a farmhouse in the garden land situated by the side of the house and he beat her, doused kerosene and set her on fire. Thereafter, the accused fled away.
3. The brother of the deceased Sri. M.B. Nagaraja PW--13 and PW--14 MB. Kalleshappa. another Basavarajappa PW--21 and Suresha PW--22 came «roof, the deceased to the garden ,.Qf__the th_e§1. found the deceased in flames. PW~13"put the said process, he sustained some burn 'i_njA:.11?ie5.< X%W--13.l' and others took the deceased:"l:t*ev:_tI?.e admitted her. PW--13 gave the police at Ex--P8. The case is registered on the
4. statement of the deceased lithe Doctor~PW--16. The the dying declaration of the deceasedias presence of PW--3. The police after investigation plaid charge--sheet for the offences under * _ 4ss--A e§nci"so2 of IPC. The Trial Court convicted the pl ac:c'used,_for'"thVe'-above offences. The accused is in appeal.
5. Y.S. Shivaprasad, counsel for the appellant accused 'strenuously submit the following circumstances to ' xassail the order of conV;Ection:--
1. The facts of the prosecution case reveal that the deceased left home. The accused made earnest efforts to trace her whereabouts by going to his in~laws house and also made enquiries with his brothers-in-law including PW~14 and along with that he searched for the; * Therefore, the theory o_f,..,th_e pi'osecu'tvi.on' uh' accused set fire to theV'»dece' because he was al'l:Ll1_e tirne in the',:¢¢n1p3m; of 2 L' his brothers~iI1--law. it he PW-13 has lodged implicating the 3 acgiisecglr 'pi-1_1_ v'treel:tII1ent on the dece;a._sed-.--':V--_V it Q it declarationlfllat Ex~PlO is incredible and cannot "be""a*ccepted, since there is an endorsement. the Doctor at Ex»-Pl that the 2 , deceased not fit to give the statement as she and not Well oriented.
'. deceased had sustained 95% burn injuries. V "The theoiy that deceased would have given dying declaration as per Ex~P7 is incredible because she was physically not capable of giving any statement because of 95% bums.
F ased is timprdbabiisj For the above reasons, it was strenuously contended by learned Counsel appearing for. appellant--accused that the order of conviction is', . law. _
6. On thorough consideration the geVidpence,";nrer not find any good ground to the'*-dying}declaration at Ex--P7. The incident hasppptakenllpiace p'.'n'1aon 4.1.05. The deceased was adrnitted 4.00 am., on 5.1.05. -- The dyjxag is recorded at 4.30 am. was admitted to the I10spital...i.n e£'.'o.eetor«--vPwi1e. The PS1, Rural Police Station, the fact of recording of .Ex--P7 and that""the Vdecealsed conscious and she was able to gi\{e_§the'.statenIen:t. statement is stated to be recorded in hi$hlp1'¢¥'SV-A",.I1~§'3'V{:.3"'~f)f PWI6. The contention that the deceased had and she was not in a position to give the'=-- staternent as per Ex-P7 cannot be acceptable. The evidences of the Doctor clinchingly establishes that the it 'deceased was in a fit condition and her statement has been % ....recorded as per Ex--P7.
7. The Ex--P7 refers to witnesses viz., PW--13--Nagaraja and others. PW--13 goes to the scene and found that the accused was running away and the deceased was in flames. %/ He tried to put off the flames and he and others admitted the deceased to hospital and he lodged the complaint as_VV}§e'rc.£3x~ P8. in the complaint, there is mention of the _fa'c:5 accused ran away after the incident. The cornplailjltis' 1ocige'd._ at 3.00 a.m. The other three uIitnesse;3..'\fi2:., 22 went to the scene alongwith PW¥"1$"and assisted shifting the deceased to the:_V'dhospital,_ evidence supports the case of that they went to the scene flames and the accused was and evidence clinchingiyt Vthe'V'accused. The judgment and 't'ria1 Court is sound and propefl __ . _ , . _ _ Ap;'je':d is Sd/-'-t ooooo JUDGE Sd/J JUDGE W