Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Nagappa @ Chinnu on 13 December, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
A33:
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUI? BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 13" BAY OF DECEMBER,201O
PRESENT Qu
THE HOR'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJfifiA$a ,'_
AND
THE ROR'BLE MR. JUsTicE;égM@§bHA§=} ugC
CRIMINAL APPEA1"N¢.iGQ€[205?fgm
BETWEEN:
The State of Karnatékai ;
Through 89:} P§blic P£§Se£fitor,
Raichur._. ' APPELLANT
(By smt}Anuraah¢ mffiésai, Addl. s§p)
§a§a§p§'@vfihinnu s/Q E.¥@llappa,
3§.yeaz$,"Q&¢c Cemtring Werk,
R/a'£BS'§aggrf Raichur. e. RES§G§§E§?
{B§.§fi§3cate Sri,B9€¢3aka}
_u €Thi$ Criminal Aygeal :3 filed under
$eé;3?8{i} & $3 ef Cr ?.C, fie gamt leave ta
' «file an apyeal against the judgment dated
7.3.200? passee. by the .Addl. Dist. & Sessions
Judge {FTC--IX), Raichur in SC No.134fQ6 0
acquitting the respondent/accused ferg" the
offence punishable under Sec.5G4 & 302_I§Cfe}"e This Appeal is coming on for ggfigxfhééxigg. this day, Manjunath J. deliverefi the fellewingg J U E G M,E Nit' State has prefetxedsfihigVegpeei"chellenging the order of acquittal pegged $3 fine Addl. Dist. & Sessions Jedge; fiai:hfif=eeté@37.3.2006 passed in SC No.i34K2QOé"'fe§':the7§dffences punishable under Secs,5Qé & 302 Cf I?C. 2" The_ feats. leeeihg te this case are as A. ' . . . . . .. 'V 1' huhgt'ieh£he;eese ef the gmeeeeetien that en '"38 e aaeeqge about 1e«3§ §.m. accusee insulted *Yh:s wife Jemelamme and gave preveeatien te her .§§7.§reak public peaee enfi further with eh rifiéenfiiem he eemmit her muréer by eeuring sax :/J kerosene over her body and set her en fire. On account of the burn injuries she diec1_4e,1_::"-.<_ "7._~1O p.m. on 23.6.2006 at the eovt.;ifi§$§iEai, Raichur. The case was committed_teh£hefSeeSichegh by 'the JMFC., Raiehur. sifi¢éf ac¢e$ée,;pie;a¢d not guilty, evidence 'wee_ iet'»hinxfwbyfi the prosecutien to prove"~./,_the"V"'i3i;Vei;lf."e'.._of 'f.V;£%1e"'Vac:cL1seci. Prosecution has relied fipfifi fiheflgefidence of Pwwl to 18 ané Exs{P¥§_teh25een&ieisfiekowl to 4.
3. After"heexfih§<theaAe§lv SPF and the defence counsel ¢_3essiehe pfieegh has formulated the following peints fie: ihs consideration:
"g 1;e'whether hthe presecutien preves beyené "eV xeesdneble doubt that an 18s6.2GG6 at =eheet,}lGm3Q psm. in LBS Eager, the 'eeeesed insulted his wife Jemelemma and .' prefieked her te break publie eeaee and x.fiheieby committed the effeeee §ueieheble 'eeeez Seefififié 19$?
'2h2,5 whether the ereeeeetiee prevee beyeeé ' reeseneble eeubt that en the ebeve said place, date and time the eeeeeee with an intention ef causing death of Jamalemma, m.
§"":;/ :
,....
poured kerosene and set her on fire, resulting in burn injuries and that on 23.6.2006 she succumbed to the_$njuries in the hospital and thereby the eceused committed the offence _cf efimufder punishable under Sec.302 of ;?Q?ff' " b
3. What order?
Upon appreciating the: oral, ana,*¢¢¢fim§5ta:y evidence, held points 1 & 2 in the negetive and acquitted the aeensed Q fog v the offences punishable unde; ;se¢gS54;_"; c5302 of IPC. Challenging "Ehei judgment "of eoquittal, present aypeal is fiiee3§fi.' = t
4. We h a'v e» heéigi learned Adel. SP1' and _fi:.Jeke for the tesfiondentg 5:u fine feeinL;eontention ef the Aflflie State V ?ub1ie yreeeeeter befere us is the: Sessions ""c$onx: nee committee serieue error in net ceeiievinq the dying éeeleretien given by the Weeceaeed befere the Aestg Sebminspeeter of ex Police as per Ex.Pw12. According to her, there are twe dying declarations. One declaratioh was given before the Taluka Executive Magisfiiaeewas per Ex.P~4 who has been examined ae P3315 added another dying declaration reeeeded by tee Aégg. Subulnspector of Police :g%.P;i9_ Wfi9 efiasd beea examined as PW-11$. Aecefdieg he flef}"$W~1l has recorded the atatemefieddieeegfiafiely after the incident and tfieeefiere igégévggé no reason for the Sessioa$ deaa£'£dddiebe§ieve Ex.P~l2 and on accountK of dfihe?eaeaeeonaederation of Ex.P-12 Sessions Ceertdhaedwfgfiély acquitted the accused persoa§uuEn fihe circumstances, she requests the eoufib_tenefiamine Exs.P~l2 & 4% and reverse the Fe vfiedfimge e£aiEe Sessions Ceuzt by relying uyen k_ the eegdenee ef ?W~1l and ether witnesses. Qer *:;eeefa€ eeeeeei fer the xeeeendent submits that d" all the eye witnesses whe have been examined by V"-dfhe prosecution have met supyerted the case of $2 (x the preeecution. .Accerding' te him, even the family members of the deeeasefi viz., brotheizand sister of the deceased who were examined eémP@§4 & 6 have stated that deceased-was'hethé&hte3i§.h sound and therefore she en $ggf§¢5";e£«éi:é7ey pouring' kerosene cu: het;:i>fleh"iertheiehébhtende that pw-15 Tahsildae has gagggfiea etatement of the deceased as per fifigfiee eh the presence of Dr.Sharada fieiihayaha fihe hhae= been examined as PW~5 and the 5§§£§:ffig§fm§ae'an endersement as per Ex.§fi4ja} ease =$h_ adettien to that doctor also givefi a certifiieate as per Ex.?~5 ta shew the c§§e1tiafi~j§f :the deceased te shew that fleeeeeed,'gwese eayable ef giving' statement. hpVefhefeferehhefeentenée that when Ex,§w4 eenteine hH_§h§t eeeeaeeé. herself set fire en her after ".qeerreiieg with her huebeefif trial eeert is xflvfieetifiee. in eequitting' the eeeeeee and that h%there are no greunfis to reverse the said gx' judgment and requests the court to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having' heard. the counsel fer_ thee §;;t:es;°, the only point to be consifiereeflhy es in thisW appeal is:
"Whether the proseeetien_ hesahyreved the guilt of the adcesefi beyohe all teasonable doubt?" the ' t' he a ?. Learned fidfilt :39?' deee "net dispute that there are two fiyihg aeeiarations and that PW»4 brother ef the deceeeefi and PW--6 sister of the deceased «hafie "net .§e§§erted the case of the proseeetien aadhehe also admits that relativee ef the deeeaseé have deposed that the deceased h*_ was "fiet vmeateily sewed. En thie backgreend; he_ehat is tte be considered is when tee eying 'a"éeeie$etiene axe thexe befere the eeert; which .t*has'?te he believed and which ehail net be hefi*be1ieved. Amittedly, Tahsilfiar is time preper §?v"' person to record. dying declaration in case of burn injuries. He has recorded the stateeent in the presence of PW~5 Dr.Sharada au;an;géa7f4na Ex.Pm5 is the certificate at0~ show thet.fienta1.t condition of the deceased. if tfle ¢ah§;;as:°gsoL is a competent authority rto trenotoiitfiéefidyino declaration has reaogdedf tn? tfiylfigwwdeelazation in the presence of a dggtsg aneasfi the deceased has stated seasons; £953 settinfif herself ablaze and if the ssatséa is no ea} responsible to make his wife _to fiset "herself ablaze; this court cannot oonvict-aithean accused. based. on the _declasetien tesetded by the Asst. Submlnspector 5: §oliee as gar Ex P~12 when the said statement :epV is sss*gg§§sgted by the enfiorsement of a fiootor y_enfi ween seen declaration is not reoorfied in the '.s§s§:ss: ie the psssenee es the doeteso in the "aeireemstanees, we do not see any illegality in t'=_the judgment of acquittal passed.Iby the trial 5%' court relying upen the evidence of PWME and the Tahsildar pw~15 and in the baek~ground gfifE3s.P-- 4 & 5. Accordingly, we holdj7tneE* the prosecution has failed to 1;-ring' of the accused beyond all reesQne$le $eubtL?Lfle
8. In the result,_ the_teppeel. ieL fiismissed. Judgment of acquittelnpa$§93 5yTFTC~II, Raichur dated 7,3.2oo5f in °Scf $o};3é/3506 is hereby confirmed.