Karnataka High Court
Sri T V Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 July, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekar, Shivashankar Amarannavar
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2067 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
Sri. T.V. Manjunatha
Aged about 40 years
S/o. Late Venkataiah
Resident of Badavanahalli
Village, Dodderi Hobli,
Madhugiri Taluk,
Tumkur District-572 101.
...Appellant
(By Sri. V. Kodandaramegowda - Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
By Badavanahalli Police
By SPP, High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. Vijaykumar Majage - Advocate)
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.10.2016
passed in S.C.No.5040/2014 by the learned IV-Additional
District And Sessions Judge, Madhugiri by allowing this
appeal and to acquit the appellant for the offence under
section 323, 498A, 307 of IPC and acquit the appellant for
the offence under Sections 323, 498A, 307 of IPC.
This criminal appeal coming on for dictating
judgment, this day, K. Somashekar J, delivered the
following:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2016 rendered by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri in SC No.5040/2014 and whereby convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whereas, in this appeal, seeking consideration of the grounds narrated in the appeal memorandum and praying for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial court in the 3 aforementioned case for the aforesaid offences and convicted the accused for the said offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel Sri. V. Kodandaramegowda for the appellant/accused, also the Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court in SC No.5040/2014.
4. The factual matrix of the case are as under:
It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 16.11.2013, Smt. Devarajamma who is the complainant and who is none other than the wife of the accused T.V.
Manjunatha, whereby she has approached Badavanahalli Police Station in Tumakuru District and based upon her complaint, the case in Crime No.83/2013 was registered against the appellant/ accused and four others for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 323, 307, 498A read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. She has 4 stated in her complaint against the accused that on 14.11.2013 at around 9.30 p.m., when she was present in the house with her husband T.V. Manjunatha who is arraigned as an accused, he asked her to bring a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her parents' house so that he would get her a job in Literacy Department. When the complainant refused to bring money, the accused at the instigation of his mother and sisters suddenly abused the complainant in a filthy language and also assaulted on her mouth, face, causing pain and pulled her hair. When she fell down, he kicked her, while crying she got up by then, the accused poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze to eliminate her. When she was crying due to burns, the appellant/accused doused fire and took her to the Badavanahalli Government Hospital and then to the District Hospital at Tumkur, where she got admitted as an in-patient for the burn injuries sustained on her hands, neck, right cheek and stomach. In pursuance of the act of the accused and also on the filing of a complaint, criminal 5 law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No.83/2013 by recording an FIR.
5. Subsequently, the case was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer and whereby PW6
- Parthasarathy who registered the case by recording an FIR as per Ex.P8. PW9 being an Investigating Officer who has done entire investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused persons before the committal court. Subsequently, the case has been committed by the committal court by passing an order as contemplated under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the case in SC No.5040/2014 has been filed and then the accused has been secured for facing up of trial. The Trial court has heard the learned Public Prosecutor and also the defence counsel relating to framing of charges and prima facie found the charges framed against the accused for the offences which are reflected in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer. The 6 accused did not plead guilty, who claims to be tried. Accordingly, plea of the accused had been recorded separately.
6. Subsequent to framing of charges against the accused, the prosecution in all entering into examination of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet and accordingly, PWs.1 to 9 having been examined and also got marked several documents at Exs.P1 to 11 and got marked M.Os.1 and 2.
7. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the prosecution and whereby the accused was subjected to examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for recording the incriminating statement/evidence against them. The accused have denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. Accordingly, it was recorded. Subsequently, the accused was called upon to enter into the defence evidence as contemplated under 7 Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence. Accordingly, it was recorded. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution as required under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and so also other provisions of law and whereby the trial court having been heard the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and so also the defence counsel. In the evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma who is the complainant and so also being the wife of the accused T.V. Manjunatha and so also evidence of PW2 - Narasimhaiah - father of PW1- Devarajamma and PW7 - Jayamma - mother of Devarajamma. Their evidence has been appreciated by the Trial Court inclusive of the evidence of PW9 - Investigating Officer who conducted the Mahazar as per Ex.P4 and also secured the photos as per Ex.P5 and wound certificate of PW1 as per Ex.P6 and that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused by facilitating the evidence and also convincing the evidence 8 of those witnesses and rendering the conviction judgment relating to the appellant/accused T.V. Manjunatha for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for a period of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Further sentenced to under S.I. for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further S.I. for three months. Further, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further S.I. for a period of 2 years, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. All the sentences shall run concurrently. It is this judgment which is challenged under this appeal by urging the various grounds.
9
8. Learned counsel Sri. V. Kodandarame Gowda for the appellant/accused T.V. Manjunatha who has taken us to the evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma who is none other than the wife of the accused that her marriage was performed on 21.05.2009 as per their customs in the Society. At the time of her marriage, the accused did not demand any sort of dowry. Before their marriage, all the sisters of accused got married and they were residing in their respective houses. The accused is a KSRTC driver by avocation, his mother gets pensionary benefit of her deceased husband Late Venkataiah. There were financial contsainment even as per the evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma and so also the evidence of PW2 Narasimhaiah who is her father, but they created the theory in order to launching a criminal prosecution against the accused that he demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to bring from her parents' house in order to get a job in a Literacy Department. When she refused to bring the said amount, on an instigation made by the mother and sisters 10 of the accused, who are arraigned as accused No.2 and Accused Nos.3 to 5 respectively, the accused abused his wife Devarajamma in a filthy language and assaulted her, kicked her and poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze as a result of which she sustained burn injuries. But this theory has been set up for filing of a complaint against the appellant/accused who is her husband and also lugged his family members i.e., his mother and also sisters. The Trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 7. PW1 - Devarajamma is the author of the complaint
- Ex.P1. PW2-Narasimhaiah is the father of the complainant and PW7-Jayamma is the mother of the complainant and also has not appreciated the wound certificate - Ex.P6. There is a contradiction as well as inconsistency in the evidence of PWs.2 and 7 - who are the parents of the complainant. But despite of it, the Trial Court had erroneously come to the conclusion in convicting the appellant/accused T.V. Manjunatha by overlooking the material fact as well as the circumstances 11 relating to the case that had been leveled charges against him and so also the evidence has been facilitated by the prosecution. If the evidence on the part of the prosecution has not been properly appreciated in this appeal, in terms of re-appreciation as well as re-visiting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in respect of the aforesaid offences, certainly resulted in absolute miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the counsel seeking for intervention of judgment passed by the trial court. The second wing of the argument is that the appellant who is an accused namely T.V. Manjunatha and PW1 - Devarajamma and there are some differences arose in that regard, the accused who is her husband had registered the matrimonial case relating to the family disputes emerged in between them, such as MC No.57/2010 before the court seeking divorce. But There was a conciliation and PW1 - Devarajamma was sent back to her husband's house to lead the marital life. Therefore, the act of the incident as alleged to have been taken place on his own wife by 12 assaulting all over her body and causing some accidental burn injuries. The said incident has taken into the act which is committed by the accused and registering criminal case against him to riggle out the criminal proceedings. Thus filing of matrimonial case in fact it goes against accused No.1 and not in his favour.
9. This contention is also made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused by referring the evidence of PW1- Devarajamma who is the author of the complaint - Ex.P1. PW1 who sustained some burning injuries all over her body such as hands, neck, right side of her face and also on the stomach which also indicates severe in nature which reflected in Wound Certificate - Ex.P6. If at all the accused who is her husband of the complainant poured the kerosene and litting fire on her resulted in sustaining burn injuries, the injuries found only to the front parts of her body, but not on the back parts of her body . Thus, the inference drawn that she 13 sustained the burn injuries accidentally and not by the act of the accused, which are based on the narration given in the complaint-Ex.P1.
10. PW1 - Devarajamma who is none other than the wife of the accused T.V. Manjunatha had given a statement before the police while she was under treatment in the hospital. On 15.11.2013, in the night, while she was under treatment, her parents, sister and brother-in-law who were presented there, tooted her to implicate the case against the accused T.V. Manjunatha. In the complaint lodged by PW1, there is no explanation for delay of one day in launching the criminal prosecution against the accused. Thus, the inference is very much required relating to the evidence of the prosecution and the complaint -Ex.P1 is nothing but a cooked up complaint and also afterthought of the complainant at the instigation of her parents, her sister and also her brother-in-law. The same has not been properly appreciated by the Trial court resulted in arriving 14 at an erroneous conclusion and held conviction to the accused T.V. Manjunatha, who is none other than the husband of the complainant.
11. The case of the prosecution entirety has been dwelling in detail, certainly there is a material contradiction in the evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma and also her parents PW2 and PW7. The same has not been considered and also not appreciated by the Trial Court. If not appreciated in this appeal, resultant in absolute miscarriage of justice to the accused with graveman of the accusation made against him. PWs.4 and 5 being the witnesses have been subjected to examination, but, they did not support the case of the prosecution. PWs.3, 6, 8 and 9 are the official witnesses. None of they have given evidence as per the records and also as per the material which collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and also involved official witnesses and also their evidence strongly proving the case relating 15 to the conclusion of the conviction upon the accused T.V. Manjunatha. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction, the conviction is not supported by any cogent insist or consist their positive evidence to probablise that the accused has not committed the incident such as giving some sort of physical as well as mental harassment to PW1
- Devarajamma insisting her to bring a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her parents' house in order to get her a job in the Literacy Department and so also causing injuries all over her body as indicated in the wound certificate - Ex.P6 and so also, the accused T.V. Manjunatha had made an attempt to take away the life of PW1 - Devarajamma who is none other than his wife. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires for intervention and also needs for re-appreciation of the evidence and also re-visiting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence relating to the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
16
12. On these premises, the learned counsel for the appellant seeking for consideration of the grounds that are urged in this appeal and to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence relating to the offences which leveled against him and to acquit the accused for the offences which are charged against him.
13. In support of his contention, the counsel has placed reliance on 2021(3) ACCR 2754 in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Nagaraju and others, whereby in this reliance, the concept of Section 498A, 302 and Section 34 of IPC has been addressed and whereby acquittal of the offences.
14. In this judgment, reluctantly registered FIR and led to filing of proceedings before the court . On this point, this judgment has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant for the purpose of consideration at reliance of clearly applicable to the present case on hand, whereby 17 PW1 - Devarajamma had sustained burn injuries as per Ex.P6 - would certificate. There is some sort of instigation for launching criminal proceedings by filing a complaint against her husband T.V. Manjunatha who is arraigned as accused No.1.
15. In this judgment, at paragraph 13, made an observation that there is a lot of differences between may be true and must be true. If from the evidence of prosecution, two views are possible. Then, view favour to the accused will have to be accepted. This point of law and also at the right of the reliance which has observed in this judgment is also recited by the learned counsel for the appellant for the appellant for consideration and also for intervening the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered against the appellant/accused namely T.V. Manjunatha.
18
16. The case in SC No.5040/2014 whereby ended in conviction against the accused T.V. Manjunatha who is no other than the husband of PW1- Devarajamma. The criminal prosecution has been set into motion by recording an FIR against Puttamma who is the mother of Accused No.1 - T.V. Manjunatha, Sowbhagya, Rangalakshmamma @ Mani and Annapoorna - sisters of accused No.1 - T.V. Manjunatha, who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5 respectively, in the case initiated against them by PW1 - Devarajamma. The criminal proceedings has been initiated against them, which was ended in acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 5 of the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 307 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, but conviction held against accused No.1 - T.V. Manjunatha, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 and 323 of IPC, 1860, relating to the physical and mental harassment that has been extended by him to his wife Smt. Devarajamma at the instigation made by his mother and sisters. When there is a benefit of doubt, that would 19 emerged in the case of prosecution, the same shall be extended to the accused also. But, strangely, the Trial Court has rendered the judgment of acquittal in favour of accused Nos.2 to 5 and held conviction to accused No.1 - T.V. Manjunatha who is the appellant before this Court and also who is the graveman of the accusations made against him and on these premises, the learned counsel seeking for consideration of grounds urged in this appeal and praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered against him and consequently, to acquit the accused for the offences which leveled against him.
17. On controverted arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and whereby the Addl. SPP for the State taking us to the complaint averments as per Ex.P1 lodged by PW1 - Devarajamma who is none other than the wife of the accused T.V. Manjunatha, she has narrated in her complaint that how 20 she meted physical as well as mental harassment by her husband also the other accused persons i.e., accused Nos.2 to 5, her mother-in-law and sister-in-laws. At their instigation, on the fateful day of 14.11.2013, at about 9.30 P.M., the accused - T.V. Manjunatha picked up quarrel to bring a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her parents' house so that he would get her a job in literacy department. When the complainant refused to bring money, the accused at the instigation of his mother and sisters suddenly abused the complainant in a filthy language and also assaulted on her mouth, face, causing pain and pulled her hair. When she fell down, he kicked her, while crying she got up by then, the accused poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze to eliminate her, that itself shows that the accused was having intention to kill her as a result of which the complainant sustained burn injuries to her hands, right cheek, neck and stomach, as indicated in Ex.P6 - wound certificate.
21
18. PWs.2 and 7 being the partents of PW1 -
Devarajamma and they have also stated in their evidence and their evidence support to the case of prosecution and there is some inconsistent in the evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma relating to the complaint - Ex.P1 and equally consistent evidence had been given by PWs.2 and 7. PW8 being a Scientific Officer who subjected to examination of burnt pieces of nighty of the complainant Devarajamma and the kerosene can which are marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2 and PW8 has given a report as per Ex.P9. The serenity is stating that M.O.1 indicates the presence of kerosene i.e., smell of kerosene. PW8 supported the case of prosecution and wherein the accused cannot deny the presence of the kerosene on her cloth as contending that the incident has been taken place accidentally stating that while she was trying to lit the wood by pouring kerosene on it. PW8 even though stood for cross-examination, M.O.1 and M.O.2 have got marked on the part of the prosecution. 22
19. PW6 who received the oral complaint and recorded the FIR and then case has been handed over to PW9 - G.R. Shivamurthy, who is the Investigating Officer and whereby he conducted the Mahazar as per Ex.P4 and also secured Wound certificate as per Ex.P6 and also the FSL report at Ex.P9 and laid the charge sheet against the accused.
20. PW6 - PSI, who received the oral complaint of PW1 - Devarajamma and set the criminal law into motion by registering FIR. Therefore the version of PW1 and also the version of PW6 - Parthasarathy being an Investigating Officer recorded the FIR as per Ex.P8 has been consistent of their evidence and further consistent with the evidence of PWs2 and 7 who are the parents of PW1 - Devarajamma.
21. As already been stated that PW9 who is an Investigating Officer and has completed the entire investigation by conducting the spot Mahazar as per Ex.P4 23 and seized M.O.1 and 2, in the presence of the panch witnesses and also for having seized the marriage invitation and photographs of their marriage. These are also the evidence facilitated by the prosecution, proven the guilt of the accused. The same has been appreciated by the trial court in rendering the conviction judgment against the accused T.V. Manjunatha. Therefore, there is no perversity and illegality and there is no infirmity found in the judgment of conviction and hence calls for interference and there is no warranting circumstances to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court. Therefore, seeking dismissal of the appeal, being devoid of merits and confirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial court.
22. It is in this context of the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and so also the strongly addressed the arguments advanced by the learned Addl. SPP, based upon the evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma 24 who is a graveman of the incident and also the complainant as well as the author of the complaint - Ex.P1, more so, she is none other than the wife of the accused T.V. Manjunatha. Subsequent to her marriage, there was some differences in between the accused and his wife PW1 - Devarajamma. The same was led to some physical as well as mental harassment as a result of that the accused picked up quarrel with her on the fateful day of 14.11.2013, at about 9.30 P.M., the accused - T.V. Manjunatha picked up quarrel to bring a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her parents' house so that he would get her a job in literacy department. When the complainant refused to bring money, the accused at the instigation of his mother and sisters suddenly abused the complainant in a filthy language and also assaulted on her mouth, face, causing pain and pulled her hair. When she fell down, he kicked her, while crying she got up by then, the accused poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze to eliminate her, that itself shows that the accused was 25 having intention to kill her as a result of which the complainant sustained burn injuries to her hands, right cheek, neck and stomach, as indicated in Ex.P6 - wound certificate.
23. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are the mother and sisters of the accused - T.V. Manjunatha. At their instigation, the accused T.V. Manjunatha who is none other than the husband of the complainant - Devarajamma, abused her and assaulted her in a filthy language and attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene and litting fire, as a result of that she sustained burn injuries on her hands, face, neck and stomach. At the time of incident, accused No.2 was present in the house. Accused Nos.3 to 5 came out of the house and going away. They did not come inside the house.
24. PW1 does not even incriminating against accused Nos.3 to 5. In fact, regarding the role of accused 26 No.2, Smt. Devarajamma while recording her evidence, has stated that Accused No.2 - her mother-in-law was present at the place of the incident. Whereas T.V. Manjunatha by avocation he is a driver in KSRTC bus and that PW1 - Devarajamma being his wife, she was doing some household work in the house. As narrated in her complaint, the incident has taken place at around 9.30 P.M., in the night. The accused No.1 T.V. Manjunatha was of the habit of taking his bath in the night after returning back from his duty as a driver in the KSRTC bus. PW1 - Devarajamma questioned about the heating of water. Even the name of T.V. Manjunatha is also not mentioned in the wound certificate as accused persons. Accused persons denying the said suggestion that PW1-Devarajamma sustained some burn injuries in the house. The inference that got drawn is that Accused No.1 - T.V. Manjunatha lit the fire on her by pouring kerosene. PW7 - mother of the complainant Smt. Devarajamma has given her evidence on the part of the prosecution and also they have been 27 subjected to examination even though she has par with the evidence of PW1 and even though she has been subjected to insisting examination and also on the par of PW1 and PW2. PWs1 and 2 having been subjected to cross- examination at length, they have admitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 were residing together even at the time of the incident. Even PW-1 - Devarajamma was also residing together with Accused No.1 - T.V. Manjunatha. However, PW4 who is subjected to examination has to be treated as hostile to the prosecution relating to the seizure in his presence by conducting Mahazar as per Ex.P4 for having seized M.O.1 and M.O.2. PW8 being a Scientific Officer who is subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and also subjected to chemical examination of M.Os.1 and 2 i.e., burn pieces of nighty of the complainant Devarajamma and also the kerosene can. Accordingly, on the chemical examination, the M.O.1 indicates the presence of kerosene as per the report FSL Report - Ex.P9. Whereby, the contention of the learned counsel for the 28 appellant that PW1 - Devarajamma accidentally caught fire while she was trying to lighting the wood piece by pouring kerosene on it. PW6 has not been subjected to cross- examination relating to the evidence in respect of Ex.P9.
25. PW1 - Devarajamma was an in-patient for having sustained burn injuries on her body i.e., on her hands, neck, face, stomach as indicated in the Wound Certificate - Ex.P6. But, Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in respect of grievous hurt even designated as a grievous injuries eighthly, any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. Then it is to be termed as grievous hurt. But in the instant case, PW1 - Devarajamma was in- patient for having sustained injuries and got admitted in hospital for treatment for a period of 20 days relating to completion of the ingredients of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 relating to grievous hurt. Whereas the 29 offences under Section 307 of IPC, relating to the knowledge, that the intention of knowledge of the accused must be as such as is necessary to constitute a murder. It is addressed extensively in AIR 1988 SC 2127. The question and also the scope and applicability of this provision that the question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of section 307, is a question of fact and not one of law. It would all depends on the facts of the given case. But, in the instant case, accused Nos.2 to 5 are the mother and sisters of Accused No.1 - T.V. Manjunatha. But, their case was ended in acquittal even for the offences under Section 498A of IPC so also for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC, 1860. But the accused No.1 made an attempt to take away the life of his wife Smt. Devarajamma. But the important thing to be borne in mind in determining the question whether an offence under Section 307, is made out is the intention and not the injury (even if simple or minor), the same is addressed in the judgment of Vasant Virthu Jadhav vs. 30 State of Maharashtra reported in (1997) 2 Crimes 539 (Bombay).
26. In so far as offences under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to voluntarily causing hurt, the essential ingredients of an offence. If hurt actually caused is simple, a person cannot be held guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt even if it was in his contemplation. But ingredients of Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and so also the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the instant case and even the prosecution has led-in the examination of PW1 - Devarajamma, who is an injured as per Wound Certificate as per Ex.P6. PWs.2 and 7 are the parents of PW1 - Devarajamma. But their evidence were found some contradiction and also not consistent with each other relating to ingredients of the aforesaid offences. The same can be seen from their evidence itself.
31
27. PW6 being an Investigating Officer who recorded the FIR as per Ex.P8 and PW9 being an Investigating Officer thoroughly investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused by conducting spot Mahazar as per Ex.P4. But PWs.6, 8 and 9 are the official witnesses. Their evidence which contrary to the evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma - author of the complaint - Ex.P1 and further contradictory to the evidence of PWs.2 and 7 - who are the parents of PW1 - Devarajamma - who is an injured by infliction of burn injuries on her body as indicated in the wound certificate - Ex.P6.
28. As already been stated, the case against accused Nos.2 to 5 ended in the acquittal of the offences which leveled against them on the basis of a doubtful theory. But, when there was a doubt crept in the mind of the court, then, the clouds of doubt in case arise, the same shall be extended each one of the accused. Mere because accused V.T. Manjunath is the husband of the 32 complainant, benefit of this has not been extended to him and held conviction against him for the offences which leveled against the accused by narrating the complaint - Ex.P1.
29. In so far as the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to subjecting her to cruelty. In so far as Section 498-A vis-à-vis, Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act. But Section 498-A of IPC, 1860 or even Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act 1872 does not introduce invidious classification qua the treatment of a married woman by her husband or relatives of her husband vis-à-vis the other offenders. The classification should be reasonable and also has clause nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e., eradication of the evil of dowry in the Indian social set-up and to ensure that married woman live with dignity at their matrimonial homes. But, in the instant case, the accused T.V. Manjunatha was insisting PW1 - Devarajamma to bring a 33 sum of Rs.10,000/- from her matrimonial house to provide her a job in the Literacy Department. But there is no material to prove the guilt against the accused and even there is no material relating to complete ingredients of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 180 for securing the conviction. But the Court must scrutinize the evidence carefully and also to acceptability of the evidence, it is the duty of the court by rendering the conviction judgment against the accused. PW6, PW8 and PW9 are the official witnesses in the instant case and their evidence also to be scrutinized carefully. But the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner the testimony of the other witnesses and even though there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses and their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons. This issue was also dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 34 Karamjith Singh Vs. State of Delhi Administration reported in AIR 2003 SC 1311.
30. PW2 Narasimhaiah and PW7 Jayamma who are the parents of PW1 Devarajamma also given their evidence on the part of the prosecution in support of their daughter as she sustained burn injuries. Their evidence should be scrutinized carefully otherwise affects the credibility of the witnesses. Even the witnesses being the very close relatives of the injured and their evidence should be scrutinized carefully.
31. But in the instant case, the accused was insisting PW-1 / Devarajamma to bring a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her matrimonial house to provide her a job in Literacy Department. But there is no material to that aspect for proving the guilt against the accused and even there is no material relating to the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC for securing conviction. The Court must scrutinize the 35 evidence carefully and if there is acceptable evidence, it is the duty of the Court to render a conviction judgment against the accused. PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 are the official witnesses in the instant case and their evidence also requires to be scrutinized carefully. But the testimony of the police personnel should be treated in the same manner as the testimony of any other witnesses and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses, their testimony cannot be relied upon. But the presumption that a person acts honestly, applies as much in favour of police personnel as much as other persons and this issue was also dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of KARAMJIT SINGH vs. STATE (AIR 2003 SC 1311).
32. PW-2 / Narasimhaiah and PW-7 / Jayamma are the parents of PW-1 / Devarajamma. They have also given evidence on the part of the prosecution supporting the evidence of their daughter Devarajamma that she had 36 sustained burn injuries over her person. It has to be held that they have deposed so in view of interestedness over their daughter. They are to be termed as interested witnesses. Hence their evidence has to be scrutinized very carefully. Otherwise, it would affect the credibility of the witnesses. Even the witnesses being very close relatives of the injured, their evidence should be scrutinized and also there should be natural witnesses to be believed. But in the instant case, the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the evidence of PW-1 Devarajamma and so also the evidence of PW-2 / Narasimhaiah and PW-7 / Jayamma. Their evidence must be closely scrutinized. If their evidence is not scrutinized carefully, certainly the gravamen of the accusation would be the sufferer and there shall be an absolute miscarriage of justice. No doubt the prosecution has facilitated the evidence by subjecting to examination PW-1 to PW-9. But the prosecution should facilitate quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by the Court and give more 37 credentiality to the statement even though the law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact.
33. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony of a single witness, into three categories, namely,
i) wholly reliable,
ii) wholly unreliable and
iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
34. In the first two categories, there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. The same has been extensively addressed 38 in the case of LALLU MANJHI V. STATE OF JHARKHAND (AIR 2003 SC 854).
35. In the instant case, PW-1 / Devarajamma is none other than the wife of the accused T.V. Manjunatha who is the appellant before us but the case as against the co- accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 ended in acquittal. But the case against this appellant / accused namely T.V. Manjunatha has ended in conviction for offences under Sections 323, 498A and 307 of the IPC, 1860. The same has been challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds. But in the instant case, insofar as conviction held against this accused Manjunatha is concerned, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND SARDA VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1984) 4 SCC 116.
36. In paragraph 163 of the said judgment, it is held that it is well-settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour 39 of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In KALI RAM V. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (AIR 1973 SC 2773), this Court made the following observations:
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."
37. In the instant case, the entire case revolves around PW-1 / Devarajamma who is the author of the complaint and so also PW-4 and PW-7 who are the parents of PW-1 / Devarajamma. But it will be seen in the evidence available on record and taking into account their evidence, there must be complete chain insofar as linking 40 to the circumstances for having sustained burning injuries. The essential conditions must be satisfied by facilitating evidence such as,
i) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved;
ii) The said circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness and;
iii) The circumstances are in proximity to the time and situation.
If these conditions are fulfilled, then in the instant case, it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating and considering positive evidence to secure conviction. If doubt arises in the mind of the Court, the benefit of doubt is always to be extended in favour of the accused alone as per the criminal justice delivery system.
38. In the instant case, the case as against the co- accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 has ended in acquittal even 41 though they were facing trial for offences equally with Accused No.1 / appellant namely T.V. Manjunatha. When on the benefit of doubt the case has been ended in acquittal, that benefit of doubt should be extended to this accused T.V. Manjunatha also. If not, certainly the gravamen of the accused would be the sufferer and it would result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the opinion that in this appeal it requires interference whereby the accused are deserving for acquittal since the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence in terms of cogent, corroborative and positive evidence to probabilise that the accused T.V. Manjunatha, that is her husband had caused burn injuries over her person as indicated in the Wound Certificate issued by the Doctor and also pouring kerosene over her person and set her ablaze and also extending some sort of physical as well as mental harassment. 42
39. The appellant / accused T.V. Manjunatha being none other than the husband of PW-1 / Devarajamma was apprehended by the Investigating Agency in the criminal prosecution initiated based upon the complaint and since from the date of conviction, that is from October 2016, accused is in incarceration for a period of 5 years 9 months and 10 days. This contention is made by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking intervention in this impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Even though this contention has been taken into consideration, but the case of the prosecution appears to be with clouds of doubt. Consequently, the appellant / Accused No.1 T.V. Manjunatha deserves for acquittal from the offences levelled against him.
40. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: 43
ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant / accused No.1 T.V. Manjunatha under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Court of the IV Addl.
District & Sessions Judge, Madhugiri in S.C.No.5040/2014 dated 04.10.2016 is hereby set-aside.
Consequent, the appellant / accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 and 323 of the IPC which were charged against him.
The appellant / T.V. Manjunatha is in incarceration in Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru. Therefore, the Superintendent of Jail Authority is directed to set him at liberty, forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.
The Registry of this Court is directed to forward a copy of the operative portion of the order to the 44 Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, for compliance, accordingly ordered.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SNC/KS