Karnataka High Court
State By Madiwala Police vs Krishnaprasad @ Babu S/O K Venugopal on 4 June, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY or JUNE 203.5 -V.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K " "
CRIMINAL APPEAL1'.{ o.
BETWEEN: " "
STATE BY MADIWALA POLICE}-» - -'
EANGALORE. _ ...AP¥{E;LANT
(BY SR1. BRAJA
AND :
KRISHNA EEAEAD @"AEAEU';' L V1'
s/0. K,.'fENAUGOPP;£..-w;. 2'?_Y-EARS';"VVV--
R/O. F,LULASAi';/I§3I'VC»OLQ1\¥Y,_ I A
RAICI~IUR.'-- A ~ .....RESPONDENT
(BY SR1. B. HORAVI GOWDA, ADV.) C11€IIviINALA.APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) es: (3) ' '«.'CR';P§'C.i,.g-APRAYING '10 GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL ,A'Cv.AH€S_T TI-IE2-.IUDGEMENT DATED 29/ 11 / 2006 PASSED BY D1TEE"'cI'ryE EAST, TRACK {SESSIONS} JUDGE, BANGALORE V' *TH1S'--.DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
['I"<"'I'*'(_3.-__VI~1;',""IN s.c. NO.299/2004, ACQUITFING THE REsPoNDEmE--AccUsED FOR THE OFFENCES PUN1sHAEI.E UNDER SECTIONS 354 AND 306 OF IPC. CRIMINAL APPEAL. COMING ON FOR HEARING '1 deceased gave birth to a male child. When the_--couple were residing in Kodichikkanahalli' " 5 the respondent/accused was aiso residing was related to them. The accuseciis 4the._son:Aof._thesister of the sister--in--1aw of the CW.3 went to attend to his 'j.;yjbe,,,theVre&re,, ,.'_=th'eidecVeasedV Padma, her child and: the Vliizere inlthehouse. At about 10.00 p.rn., intention to commit and thereby attempted _ g However, the deceastedfln the clutches of the accused. andl incident, she was annoyed and Ahecarrrle' d:ejeVcted"-invlife and immediately, she doused '*-.her':s.e1f:,,with..'kerosene and set herself ablaze, as a result r--..of.,_e.Whicl1., " sh,e_}~ sustained severe burn injuries. The accused wh'oAlwas- present there, tried to put--off the fire consequently, he also sustained burn injuries on his A b_oth...é})a1ms. After hearing the screams, PW.3- Manohar, owner of the building came there and thereafter, the ,4 injured Padma was shifted to Victoria Hospital. Thereafter, PW.3~1\/ianohar, owner of the',-V informed PWs.2 & 4 about Padma having injuries and she having been adniitted4._to' it Immediately, on coming to know of this}: dher Surekha (PW.2) went to Hospital, sister Padma taking treatment and enquired her as to burn injuries.
Injured Pursuant to the Authorities to the visited the hospital
at abou.:_:2';3o 'é.,i:iii;'s«§i1~- .§i5«.02.20o3 and after getting the injured _Padi1i.aa exiarnineid by the Doctor and the Doctor . that was in a fit condition to make questioned the injured as to how she sustained burn injuries and her statement was recorded per 'Ei<.P6. On the basis of Ex.P6, the case in Crime 2003 for the offence punishable under Section of IPC came to be registered. Subsequently, at about 00.50 hours on 01.03.2003, the said,-";Padma succumbed to the burn injuries whiie taking_.treatm in the hospital. Thereafter, PW.2 went to police made statement in this regard," based' the it police added offence under Sect4io_n"3x06 to already registered in Crime"i\t{T;};233V/2003Aandfsubmitted FIR to the took--up investigation. On police, PW.1 Ramachandra;'fl_fPahsi1dar;': South Taluk, conducted. v'.:dea:d"body and submitted the Thereafter, the dead body examination. PW.9- Dr.Ud_aya conducted post--mortem, was of ' _t1A1e;yve--o:pii*ii0Ii that themdeath was due to toxemia as a result 0' ,_0s:u.stained. During investigation, the respondellt/accused was arrested and the statements of Wvfitnesses were recorded. After completing investigation, sheet came to be laid. The accused on being ..produced before the learned Magistrate though was /.3 initially remanded to judicial custody, subsequently, was enlarged on ball.
3) The accused pleaded charges levelled against him and,A:clairried4't,o: v'if.ie prosecution to bring home -the guilt of examined PWs. 1 to 10 and P10 and MO.l. During his Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused incriminating circumstances? in the evidence of prosecutio1n'~.vliitnessesj: did not choose to lead ' Defence of the accused was one of total denial of false implication.
it "Tphe llleflarned Sessions Judge after hearing on appreciation of the oral as well as doc.ume,i1ta1}yAlV evidence, by the judgment under appeal "hgeld the prosecution has failed prove the guilt of the 'accused for the charges levelled against him by proving i the incident alleged and the complicity of the accused for the same, therefore the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused . Being aggrieved by the said State has presented this appeal.
5} Upon service of nozticgfyf' "eflie resp0ndent/ accused has appeared rthroughv:ihijseouzosel. "
have heard Sri. B. Raja fearned H.C.G.P. appearing ap_peIiai1t4:3tate and perused the records. '
6) perused the records, I find in: I am of the opinion that the judg1nent~ do not suffer from any perversity or iliegality, therefore, there are no grounds to
- .interi"er:e the said judgment.
evidence on record no doubt clearly V --V estah}is'}1es'that the deceased Padrna, W/o. CW.3-- 00 Pradeepviisustained burn injuries at about 10.00 or 11.00 * "on 24.02.2003 while she was residing in a rented 0' house owned by PW.3-Manohar in Kodichikkanahalii and subsequently on 01.03.2003 at about 00.50 hours, she succumbed to the burn injuries. According to thegof 'the prosecution, the deceased doused kerosene and set herself ablaze, vasa. .resu1t'_Vof she sustained burn injuries and she did this__i11_ a commit suicide. Accordir1g"'~~to the, pr.os_eeution", the"
deceased committed vsuicide.r'on:'aceou'nt of"the-cleliberate act done by the accused {pen she was in the house and ihoritrage her modesty and thus of suicide by :7: n_'o""direct evidence as to the overt-aetV'a«ttribut.ed the accused. The entire case rests on thfie"ai1ege'd svtatement said to have been made by "'~....,the':....det:'eas.3;1 b¢f¢re'the police at about 3.00 a.m. on before her sister PW.2-- Surekha in the morning 05.02.2003. Perusal of the judgment under V"»appea.1-iriidicates that the learned Sessions Judge is of the
--opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the ..._deceased was in a fit condition to make statement and 1 ..'5 5 that Ex.P6 was the statement made by her. TheV.lea1"ned Sessions Judge has also noticed the the statement Ex.P6. The learned Sessioiéis also noticed that irnmediate1y""aft'erp_ the.y alas brought to the hospital, at the earliest point had given history to the 'fioctor Vhthat' injuries on account, lthieflxsarne was recorded in the hospital and corroborated; of PW.6--Dr.B.S. Nagarathrlal "c.ase':»§oflthe prosecution that theuwsvtatement as per Ex.P6 View of the matter, the 1ea1'n.edpSe'ssi.onsV Judge: has held that the prosecution «. toéproveyllthe guilt of the accused. A. A 'A--.V-Thiellfact that the accused was also residing 'theadeceased and her husband in Kodichikkanahalli it to have not been seriously disputed by the ' accused. Though it is the case of the prosecution that when the accused tried to put--off the fire, he also 10 sustained burn injuries, the prosecution has not placed any evidence to substantiate the said fact. However. PW.3-Manohar in his oral evidence has stated that-,after hearing the cries of Padma, he saw the the house and thereafter, he saw the accusedat'thé.A_is~ce11e '-of occurrence, and the deceasedhaving injuries. No doubt, the crucial question issas :hoi.v"thVe' deceased sustained 'injuries., i 'i3W'.36~Dr.B.S. Nagaratha in her evidence that on 21.03.2003 at 4.50 13.111. Snot. Padmawas}oroughtV§to'V"the hospital by one Pstpahna;f,ovvrier 'of.at'he house with the history of she havingu'--susta1nedfiinjuries" in an accident of stove burst and V aftert4"eXam_iVnation"of the patient, she found that sustained "" "600/o of the burn injuries and
-sheiwas admitted to the hospital. It is in her evid_enc,e.th:attV.the history furnished was noted in the MLC registeflmaintained by the hospital and Ex.P8 is the A -.ex'tr_'a'ct of the said MLC register. According to Ex.P8, the ..,.patient gave history that she sustained accidental bums 11 due to the stove burst at about 11.00 p._rn. on 24.03.2003 in their house. According to the co_r1te'i1tsV,4of Ex.P8, the general condition of the satisfactory and she was conscious;--« F-130m. conitlentgs 0 of Ex.P8, it is manifestly clear dec:e'asVe'dVV was brought to the hospital;*v--.sh--e was and in at position to state as tG,how..§he At the earliest point of that she sustained bumsgon burst. However, in the made at about 3.15 a.m. on I5"\._'J'V."7V4as per Ex.P6, she said to have--.disclosevCl"account of the act committed by the accu;sed'.in her and attempting to rape
-'W,.4.,hei'i,--lllisliie dousedévherself with kerosene and set herself Oct"-.course, PW.7 in his oral evidence has corroborated this case of the prosecution. However, it is to note that in Ex.P6, no explanation is A foithlcoming as to why she had furnished the history ...that she sustained burn injuries on account of the stove I2 burst. In the absence of any such explanation, it is-~-highly difficult to believe that the accused was resgonsibfleavfor the deceased committing suicide. In the and the evidence of PW.6, it is Zhighlyjtoivbeiievie ' as to Whether the deceased hadA:4'r_eaJ,iv m3'fl§A--. as per Ex.P6.
9) Yet to doubt the genuineness ogf'-the that though according the hospita},
enquired_Vvivith' the condition of the patieritto. since the Doctor certified that she condition to make statement, he recorded' her' ""--stat_ernent as per Ex.P6, it is not »forthVcoIning_Aas.. to whether the statement was recorded in th.é"p'resen'ceVfof the Doctor. It is also pertinent to note that theacertificate as to the condition of the injured by V' '..ffthei'Doctor that she is in a fit condition to give statement, is; found on the requisition as per Ex.P5 given by PW.7 to the Doctor. If really Ex.P6 had been recorded in the K?
I3 presence of the Doctor, signature of the Doctor .-would have certainly been obtained on the said statement. According to the evidence of PW.6, he to whether the police recordeidwthe. flsdtaternent: of the ' injured in his presence or not.K__ No dot;-bt;»v it Vis'"~not.V necessary that the statemetnti, should be recorded inthe presence of iioizifeifer, in the light of the history at the earliest point, the contents of Ex.P6 in that background.
the the statement said to have assumes greater importance.
Having regard 'todithe. above circumstances. I am of the t1'1<'*V:"1"e"a1A*V1'1ed Sessions Judge is justified in is not free from doubt. Though according' immediately after coming to know of incident, she went to the hospital and enquired with sister and came to know about the incident, it appears she has not disclosed the same to the police till 1":
4 ,- ' 14 01.03.2008. In the light of the history furnishedhy the deceased herself at the earliest point evidence of PW.2 that on her informed her about the incident! Wcar1riot_gb'e heiieved 04 it is not free from doubt. 'Having tohthewe' improbabilities in the case"V'e:Vf:."iethe and the history furnished by the earliest point of time and the vabseniceflofi from the deceased and under what to the Doctor, the learned _ jtistified in holding that the prosecntion the guilt of the accused for the ievelled against him. The judgment do not suffer from any perversity or Sessions Judge has appreciated the"--- efiderice in its proper perspective and the flappreciation of the evidence by the learned Sessions 0 Jiidge is in accordance with the wel1--sett1ed principles of /r 15 law. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere the judgment of the Court below.
10) Accordingly, I find no. _I_neri_t' Therefore, the appeal is dismi;s.4sed'.i ~: The acquittal passed by theiivffiessiohsi lierebyiii confirmed.
i