Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka, vs Manjunath on 25 September, 2020
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad, V.Srishananda
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRL.A. NO.100344/2016
BETWEEN
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY LAXMESHWAR POLICE STATION,
GADAG DISTRICT, THROUGH THE
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL.S.P.P.)
AND
MANJUNATH S/O BASAPPA CHOTAGAL,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O: PUTAGAV BADNI, TALUK SHIRAHATTI,
DISTRICT: GADAG.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, ADV.)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 378(1) & (3) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL & TO
SET ASIDE JUDGMENT & ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DT.26.02.2016
PASSED BY LEARNED ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
GADAG IN S.C. NO.36 OF 2015 AND TO CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498-A & 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 07.09.2020, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
B.M.SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the State impugning the judgment dated 26th February 2016 in S.C. No.36/2015 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag (for short, 'the Sessions Court'). The Sessions Court by the impugned dated 26.02.2016 has acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'). The charge against the respondent is because of the accusation that he on 10.05.2015 doused his wife Smt.Champa, who was in the kitchen of their house, with kerosene and lit her on fire which resulted in her death on 20.05.2015 because of the burn injuries.
2. The prosecution's case against the respondent could be summarized thus:
2.1 The respondent and Smt.Champa were married on 30.05.2008. They were living in Puttagaon Badani, Shirahatti Hobli, Lakshmeshwar. Kumari -3- Meenakshi and Kumari Lakshmi, who as of the date of the incident were aged 5 and 3 years respectively, are their children. The respondent over a period of time started doubting Smt.Champa's fidelity and he was therefore subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty.
Smt.Champa informed her parents about her plight, and they counselled the respondent to mend his ways and stop harassing her or doubting her character.
2.2 On 10.05.2015 at around 02:00 p.m., when Smt.Champa was working in kitchen, the respondent picked up quarrel with her abusing her in filthy language. When Smt.Champa objected to the respondent's use of abusive language, he took a kerosene can available in the premises, threw kerosene on her and lit her, and went out saying she could die.
2.3 The neighbours in the locality, on hearing Smt.Champa's cries for help, rushed in to put out the fire. Later these neighbours and the respondent shifted her to Community Health Centre, Lakshmeshwar for -4- treatment at around 03:30 p.m. Smt.Champa was administered initial treatment by the Doctors there, but was advised to shift her to KIMS, Hubballi. Therefore, the respondent shifted Smt.Champa in an ambulance to KIMS Hospital on the same date at 05:30 p.m. 2.4 The Medical Officer in Community Health Centre, Lakshmeshwar informed the Lakshmeshwar Police Station about Smt.Champa being brought to the Centre with burn injuries. The PSI Lakshmeshwar deputed two of his constables to visit the Community Health Centre, Lakshmeshwar, and when these persons reached the Centre, they were informed that Smt.Champa was advised to be taken to KIMS, Hubballi.
2.5 The PSI Lakshmeshwar directed these two Police Constables to visit KIMS, Hubballi, and these Police Constables secured fitness certificate from the Doctors at KIMS, Hubballi about Smt.Champa's fitness to give her statement. They also sent a requisition to the -5- jurisdictional Tahasildar to record Smt.Champa's statement. On the next day i.e., on 11.05.2015 the PSI Lakshmeshwar obtained Smt.Champa's statement at 2:00 p.m. in the presence of the Doctors and later, at around 03:15 p.m. registered FIR in Crime No.55/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of IPC.
2.6 Meanwhile, the jurisdictional Tahasildar, who was given a requisition to record Smt.Champa's statement at around 12:30 p.m. on 11.05.2015, visited KIMS, Hubballi around 01:00 p.m. He recorded Smt.Champa's statement between 01:10 and 01:30 p.m. after a Doctor at KIMS, Hubballi certified that the deceased was fit to give her statement.
2.7 When the deceased was taken to KIMS, Hubballi on 10.05.2015 at around 05:30 p.m., the causality Medical Officer informed the Police Outpost at the Hospital, and the personnel in the Police Outpost sent intimation about the same to Vidyanagar Police -6- Station. The Station House Officer passed on the information to the Lakshmeshwar Police Station, but initiated no further action.
2.8 The deceased, after being in KIMS, Hubballi for about ten days breathed her last on 20.05.2015. She died because of septicemia as result of burn injuries. The respondent was apprehended in the meanwhile on 13.05.2015.
3. The PSI Lakshmeshwar, who commenced investigation with the registration of the FIR as aforesaid, filed charge sheet against the respondent on 25.07.2015. The jurisdictional magistrate secured the presence of the respondent, who was in judicial custody, and committed the case for trial to the District and Sessions Judge, Gadag after complying with the requirements under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Principal District and Sessions Judge by order dated 21.10.2015 made over the case for trial by the Sessions Court. -7-
4. The Sessions Court, being of the opinion that there was material to proceed against the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC framed separate charges against the respondent for these two offences. When the charges were read over by the Sessions Court to the respondent, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as 26 witnesses including the Panch witnesses, relatives and neighbhours of Smt.Champa and the respondent, the Doctors from CMC, Lakshmeshwar and KIMS Hubballi and the Police personnel. The Panchas have been examined to establish the Inquest Panchanam (Ex. P1), the Spot Panchanama (Ex. P3) and Seizure Panchanama (Ex.P7), and the photographs taken at the time of drawing these Panchanamas (Ex. P2 and 4 to 6). But, these witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution's case: even Smt.Champa's elder sister, Smt.Svaitri Malleshappa Meti (P.W.3), one of the -8- Panchas to the Inquest Panchanama, has turned hostile.
6. Sri. Hanumatha Rao Kulkarni (P.W.1) and Mallikarjuna Goud G. Patil (P.W.2) are the witnesses, other than Smt.Savitri Malleshappa Meti, who have been examined to establish the Inquest Report. Sri.Nagappa Hanumanthappa Ganigar (P.W.4) and Sri.Mahabaleshwar Masankatti (P.W.5) are examined as witnesses to establish the Spot Mahazar. Sri.Basavaraju Kallur (P.W.6), a Panch witness to the Seizure Mahazar under which allegedly the respondent's clothes were seized, has also not supported the prosecution's case in deposing that the Mahazar was drawn at the Police Station, the respondent had the clothes with him and otherwise he does not know the contents of the Mahazar.
7. Smt.Thotavva Banavi (P.W.8), Smt.Neelavva Kattennavar (P.W.9) and Sri.Shivaputrappa Attigeri (P.W.11), the neighbhours of Smt.Champa and the -9- respondent, have also not supported the prosecution's case. In fact, Sri.Shivaputrappa Attigere (P.W.11), in a major divergence from the prosecution's case that the respondent doused Smt.Champa with kerosene and caused her burn injuries in the afternoon, has stated when he rushed to the respondent's house at about 10 o'clock in the morning, he found Smt.Champa lying with burn injuries.
8. The acquaintances of the families of the respondent and Smt.Champa, Sri.Tirakappa Mooki (P.W.10), Sri.Shivananad Malligwad (P.W.13), Sri.Vigneshwara Malligwad (P.W.14) and Sri.Veerappa Annigeri (P.W.16), who were cited as witnesses who would speak about a panchayat between the respondent and Smt.Champa because she was complaining about harassment by the respondent suspecting her fidelity, have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's case. Sri.Veerappa Annigeri (P.W.16) has stated that he was part of panchayat held to advice the respondent
- 10 -
about his earnings, and he never interceded to counsel the respondent about harassing Smt.Champa.
9. The relatives, Smt. Anita Shivananda Ganigar (the respondent's niece - P.W.7), Sri.Chennabasappa Sankalipura (Smt. Champa's father) and Sri.Malappa Sankalipura (Sri. Chennabasappa Sankalipura's brother) have also not supported the prosecution case. Smt.Anita Shivananda Ganigar has stated that Smt.Champa, who caught fire while preparing tea, ran out screaming and she tried to put the fire out by throwing water on Smt.Champa. The father and his brother have stated that Smt.Champa informed them despite her burn injuries when they could speak to her at KIMS, Hubballi that she suffered burn injuries in an accident in the kitchen when a kerosene container fell on her.
10. The other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are the Medical Officer/Doctors, the then Tahalsildar, Hubballi, an Assistant Engineer, with
- 11 -
PWD from Shirahatti Sub Division and the police personnel. Dr. Srinivas Kodaganur, a Post Graduate Student at KIMS, Hubballi who has certified that Smt.Champa was fit to give her statement, is examined as P.W.19. Dr. Anil Kumar Totad, the Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Lakshmeshwar where Smt.Champa is first taken for treatment is examined as P.W.21. Dr. Shivanand Talewad, a Tutor, KIMS, Hubballi who has conducted Post Mortem, is examined as P.W.22. Sri. Halappa Nagavi, the then Tahasildhar Hubballi is examined as P.W.20. Sri.Huliappa Hosamani, an Assistant Engineer, PWD, Shirahatti Sub Division is examined as P.W.23.
11. Amongst the police personnel, the police constables who carried FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate and escorted the dead body for the Post Mortem are examined as P.W.17 and P.W.19. The P.S.I., Lakshmeshwar, Sri. Ravichandra Badafakirappanavvar
- who registered the FIR and conducted the initial investigation - and Sri. Srinivas, CPI Shirahatti - who
- 12 -
completed the investigation, are examined as P.W.25 and P.W.26.
12. The Sessions Court, considering that all the witnesses, except the official witnesses, have turned hostile, has opined that the prosecution's case, which would hinge on Smt.Champa's dying declarations, cannot be accepted as these dying declarations are not established as required in law. The Sessions Court has opined that because of the undisputed evidence as regards the nature of the burn injuries suffered by Smt.Champa and the contradictions in the evidence of the official witnesses, the dying declarations are not proved.
13. This Court on hearing the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel observed the following facets of the case viz.,
(a) Ravichandra Badafakirappanavvar, the P.S.I., Lakshmeshwar has deposed that Dr.Anil Kumar Totad, the Medical Officer,
- 13 -
Community Health Center, Lakshmeshwar informed him on 10.05.2015 at 3:30 p.m. itself that Smt.Champa was brought to the Center with burn injuries. But, the FIR is registered only on the next day, 11.05.2015 at 3:15 p.m. after recording her statement at 2:00 p.m.; and
(b) There is a Police Outpost at KIMS Hubbali, and Smt.Champa was taken there on 10.05.2015 around 5:30 p.m. But there is no information on whether MLC Intimation was filed with the Police Outpost, and thereafter any action was taken to register FIR. The only evidence is that after the death of Smt.Champa, MLC Intimation is sent to Lakshmeshawara PS by the Police Outpost, KIMS Hubballi over an email that is part of the requisition (Ex. P-28) filed with the jurisdictional Magistrate to include Section 302 of IPC.
- 14 -
14. This Court by order dated 31.08.2020 directed the Sri. Ravichandra Badafakirappanavvar the P.S.I., Lakshmeshwar, Dr. Ravindra B Yeligar, Plastic Surgeon, KIMS Hubballi (on whose behalf Dr.Srinivas Kodaganur - P.W.19 - has signed the Fitness Certificate/s), the Head Constable at Police Outpost in KIMS, Hubballi and the Police Inspector, Vidyanagar Hubballi to appear before this Court with necessary records on 07.09.2020 lest any observation is made that could affect them in view of the law1 that the concerned officials must be heard before any such observation is made against them.
15. The aforesaid Officers and the Doctor appeared before this Court on 07.09.2020. Dr.Ravindra B. Yeligar informed this Court, on the basis of record carried by him, that the concerned Casualty Medical Officer informed the personnel at the Hospital's Police 1The necessary reiteration in this regard is in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi v. Pankar Chaudhary and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 5412
- 15 -
Outpost in the evening of 10.05.2015 about Smt.Champa being brought to the Hospital with burn injuries and the treatment being commenced. Dr.Ravindra B. Yeligar on going through the records in the present case states that he will ensure that fitness certificates to give statements will be issued with all solemnity as the occasion demands and the evidence before the Courts is also tendered accordingly.
16. Sri.R.M.Talikoti, the Head Constable at the Outpost says on receiving the intimation from the Casualty Medical Officer, he informed the Station House Officer, Vidyanagar PS. Sri.Girish Rodkar, the then Station House Officer states that, upon receipt of information, he informed the PSI, Laksmeshwar, and if there is any lapse in registering the FIR in his Station on receipt of intimation is only an inadvertent lapse and it is not deliberate.
17. Sri. Ravichandra Badafakirappanavvar, the P.S.I., Lakshmeshwar, states that when he received
- 16 -
intimation from Dr. Anil Kumar Totad, the Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Lakshmeshwar he was on election duty but he instructed two of his personnel to proceed to Community Health Center, Lakshmeshwar and later to KIMS, Hubballi to initiate appropriate process, and his failure to explain the same in his evidence is only because of inadvertence and there is neither dereliction negligence. Sri.Girish Rodkar and Sri.Ravichandra Badafakirappanavvar, in addition to their explanations as aforesaid, also state that they would ensure that in future there would no reason for any Court to express anguish over the manner in which the first information is handled.
18. The questions that this Court will have to consider in this case, apart from the respondent's culpability for the charges framed against him, would be the delay in registering the FIR and the non registration of the FIR by the Vidyanagar PS, and the manner in which the evidence is tendered about Smt.Champa's
- 17 -
fitness to give a voluntary statement about how she came to suffer 90 - 95% burn injuries.
19. On the question of delay in registering the FIR, it would be apt to refer to what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao2, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:
"Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained."2
(2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 582, and referred to in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtas v. State of Haryana (2019) 10 Supreme Court Cases 554
- 18 -
20. When the question of delay in registering the FIR on 11.05.2015 at 3:15 pm by Sri.Ravichandra Badafakirappanavvar, the P.S.I., Lakshmeshwar, based on Smt.Champa's statement, which would be one of the dying declarations, is examined, it will have to be concluded that the delay in recording Smt.Champa's statement and registering the FIR, which remains unexplained in evidence, whatever the circumstances, should have been avoided to ensure a prompt and an independent investigation.
21. On the question of non registration of the FIR by the Vidyanagar PS on receipt of MLC Intimation from the Police Outpost, KIMS Hubbali, it would be necessary to refer to the Constitutional Bench decision in Lalit Kumari v. State of U.P3., and the subsequent advisories and decision. The Constitutional Bench, while considering the question whether a Police Officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission 3 (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 331
- 19 -
of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or could the Police Officer have the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same, has held that a Police Officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed, and action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
22. Further, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when Lalit Kumari v. State of U.P was being considered by other Benches, has issued Advisory dated 10.05.2013 in No.15011/35/2013 - SC/ST-W, and paragraph 3 of this Advisory reads as follows:
"The legal position stated above expects that the police shall register an FIR upon receipt of information of the commission of a cognizable offence. Further, if after registration of FIR, upon investigation, it is found that the subject matter
- 20 -
relates to the jurisdiction of some other police station, the FIR may be appropriately transferred to the police station in which the case falls. Moreover, if at the time of registration of FIR, it becomes apparent that the crime was committed outside the jurisdiction of the police station, the police should be appropriately instructed to register a 'Zero' FIR, ensure that the FIR is transferred to the concerned police station u/s 170 of the Cr.P.C. It should be clearly stated that the delay over the determination of the jurisdiction leads to avoidable wastage of time which impacts on the victim and also leads to offenders getting an opportunity to slip from the clutches of the law. It should be clearly instructed that failure to comply with the instruction of registering an FIR on receipt of information about the cognizable offence will invite prosecution of the police officer u/s166A of the IPC for an offence specified u/s166A or departmental action or both."
The underlining is by this Court
23. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.30666 OF 2019 (GM-Res)4 in the light of the Central Government's advisory supra and the Central Government's subsequent advisory dated 12.10.2015 4 A public Interest litigation disposed of on 19.9.2019
- 21 -
stating that a 'Police Officer is duty bound to register a case on the basis of information disclosing a cognizable offence and a FIR is to be registered irrespective of territorial jurisdiction', has issued the following direction observing that the State Government has not issued any direction despite the advisories:
"We, accordingly, direct the State Government to issue instructions/directions to all the Police Stations in the State as indicated above in terms of the advisory dated 10th May 2013 (Annexure-A) and the advisory dated 6th February 2014 (Annexure-B). Necessary directions shall be issued by the State Government through the Director General of Police to all the Police Stations within a period one month from the date of which copy of this order is provided to the office of the Government Advocate. The directions issued shall be placed on public domain and on the official website of the State Government, so that, the citizens become aware of the same."
24. It is in public domain that appropriate circular has been issued in compliance with the aforesaid directions, and with the adherence to such circular, it can be reasonably expected that FIR, irrespective of the
- 22 -
questions of territorial jurisdictions, will be registered forthwith and the necessary process begun so that the objective in prescribing the same is achieved.
25. The prosecution's case against the respondent, with all the witnesses except the official witnesses turning hostile, depends upon Smt.Champa's statement recorded by Sri. Ravichandra Badafakirappanavvar, the P.S.I., Lakshmeshwar as per Ex.P.27 and the declaration recorded by the Tahasildhar as per Ex.P.29. The statement as per Ex.P.27 is recorded at 2:00 p.m. on 11.05.2015 and the FIR based on such statement is registered on 11.05.2015 at 3:15 p.m. The Tahasildhar has recorded Smt.Champa's declaration in the prescribed form in Ex.P.29 between 1:10 and 1:15 p.m. Thus, there are two dying declarations, and the evidentiary value of these dying declarations will have to be considered in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha Bai Vs. State of
- 23 -
Maharashtra5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:
"It is clear from the above provision that the statement made by the deceased by way of a declaration is admissible in evidence under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. It is not in dispute that her statement relates to the cause of her death. In that event, it qualifies the criteria mentioned in Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. There is no particular form or procedure prescribed for recording a dying declaration nor it is required to be recorded only by a Magistrate. As a general rule, it is advisable to get the evidence of the declarant certified from a doctor. In appropriate cases, the satisfaction of the person recording the statement regarding the state of mind of the deceased would also be sufficient to hold that the deceased was in a position to make a statement. It is settled law that if the prosecution solely depends on the dying declaration, the normal rule is that the courts must exercise due care and caution to ensure genuineness of the dying declaration, keeping in mind that the accused had no 5 (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 224
- 24 -
opportunity to test the veracity of the statement of the deceased by cross-
examination. As rightly observed by the High Court, the law does not insist upon the corroboration of dying declaration before it can be accepted. The insistence of corroboration to a dying declaration is only a rule of prudence. When the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is voluntary, not tainted by tutoring or animosity, and is not a product of the imagination of the declarant, in that event, there is no impediment in convicting the accused on the basis of such dying declaration. When there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated and assess independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of certain variation in the other."
26. Smt. Champa is first seen by Dr. Anil Kumar Totad (P.W.21), Medical officer, Community Health Centre, Lakshmeshwar, and he has issued wound certificates (Ex.P.30) stating that Smt.Champa had burn
- 25 -
injuries on face, neck, in the front and back of her chest, on both her upper limbs, on her abdomen and genitalia and also on the soles of her feet. Dr.Shivanand Talewad, who has conducted Post Mortem and is examined as P.W.22, has affirmed that Smt.Champa had such burn injuries including the burns on her soles and she had 90% to 95% burn injuries of the whole body. Dr.Srinivas Kodaganur (P.W.19), who has certified that Smt.Champa was fit to give her statement to both the PSI Lakshmeshwar and Sri.Halappa Nagavi, the Tahasildhar, has also confirmed that Smt.Champa was suffering 90 - 95% injuries. Sri.Halappa Nagavi, the Tahasildhar, has stated that Smt.Champa gave her statement despite burn injuries on her eyes and mouth. The Sessions Court, in the light of this evidence, has opined that it cannot be reasonably inferred that Smt.Champa could have, with such burn injuries, especially injuries to her eyes and mouth, given her statement either to PSI, Lakshmeshwar or the Tahasildhar.
- 26 -
27. The PSI, Lakshmeswar, who states that he has recorded Smt.Champ's Statement as per Ex.P.27, says he took the thumb impression of Smt.Champa and her mother. This statement as per Ex.P.27, it is asserted is recorded at 2:00 pm on 11.05.2015. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to contrast this with the assertion by the Tahasildar, who says he has recorded Smt.Champa's earlier statement in the prescribed Form between 1:10 and 1:30 p.m. The Tahasildhar has deposed that he had taken Smt.Champa's toe impression because her upper limbs were burnt. If the Tahasildhar, who says he recorded Smt.Champa's statement between 1:00 and 1:30 p.m. could not take thumb impression, it is difficult to accept that the PSI, Lakshmeshwar could take her thumb impression. This enhances the doubt not only about Ex.P.27 but also about Ex.P.29.
28. Both the PSI, Lakshmeshwar and the Tahasildhar assert that they recorded Smt.Champa's
- 27 -
respective statements as per Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.29, after Dr.Shrinivas Kodagnur (P.W.19) certified that Smt.Champa was fit to give her statement. However, evidence of Dr.Shrinivas Kodagnur (P.W.19) does not inspire any confidence whatsoever. Dr.Shrinivas Kodagnur (P.W.19) states that he examined Smt.Champa on 10.05.2015 at 11.30 p.m. and certified Smt.Champa was fit to give statement when, given the circumstances of the case, it is impossible he could have examined Smt.Champa on 10.05.2015. This doctor repeatedly says that he examined Smt.Champa on 10.05.2015 and certified she was fit to give statement, and on the same day PSI, Lakshmeshwara and the Tahasildhar have recorded the respective statements thereafter. The doctor is either callous in mentioning the date, or the PSI, Lakshmeshwar and the Tahasildhar are not correct in asserting that they recorded the respective statements on 11.02.2015.
29. Further, the doctor, contrary to every material on record, says the Tahasildhar took Smt.Champa's
- 28 -
signature when he recorded her statement as per Ex.P.29. This Court, as has been done many times in the past, records that the solemnity and the sanctity with which the dying declarations are considered in Courts is understood by all the concerned and necessary actions are taken.
30. In these circumstances, and the delay in recording the statements and the FIR, this Court is of the considered opinion that neither Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.29 are proved as Smt.Champa's dying declarations. As such, there is no reason for interference with the respondent's acquittal of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh