Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha vs State By Hosanagara Police on 26 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.625 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
Manjunatha
S/o Hanumantha Naika,
Aged about 53 years,
Coolie Work,
R/o Hiregodu,
Varamballi Village,
Hosanagara,
Shivamogga District
…Appellant
Digitally signed (By Sri Adinarayan, Advocate)
by SRIDEVI S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
State by Hosanagara Police
Shivamogga,
Rept. by Public Prosecutor
High Court Building,
Bangalore-01
…Respondent
(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, SPP-II)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.,
praying to set aside the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2015,
passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, at Shivamogga, in
S.C.No.168/2014, convicting the appellant/accused for the
offence p/u/s 302, 498A of IPC.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearing, this day,
Sreenivas Harish Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The accused in S.C.No.168/2014 on the file of
the III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga has
preferred this appeal questioning the correctness
of the judgment dated 15.09.2015 convicting him
for the offences punishable under Sections 498A
and 302 of IPC and sentencing him to rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-
with further imprisonment for 3 months in case of
failure to pay fine amount for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of IPC and life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- and further
imprisonment for 12 months in case of failure to
pay fine amount for the offence punishable under
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
2. The prosecution case is like this:
Bangaramma, the deceased in this case was
the wife of the accused. His native village was
Kanivebilachi village in Davanagere District. After
his marriage with Bangaramma he went and stayed
at Hiregodu village, Hosanagara Taluk,
Shivamogga District in the house of his mother-in-
law. The matrimonial life was cordial for a period
of one year after the marriage and thereafter there
used to take place quarrels between the husband
and the wife. There is allegation that the accused
used to pickup quarrel with his wife as he was very
much addicted to liquor and once he left the house
and went to his native place and thereafter he
again returned to the house of his mother-in-law.
When his wife was allotted a plot by the gram
panchayat, they started construction of a house
there. In the meantime, the marriage of the
daughter of Gangamma, the sister of Bangaramma
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018was fixed. Bangaramma and accused were invited
to the marriage. When Bangaramma wanted to
attend the marriage, the accused took objection to
it stating that as none from the family of
Gangamma supported them in construction of the
house, he did not like to attend to marriage. In
this background there ensued a quarrel between
the accused and Bangaramma in the evening on
02.05.2014. The actual allegation is that during
the quarrel the accused poured kerosene on his
wife and set fire to her. Bangaramma was shifted
to hospital and died at 10.00 am on the next day.
Report of this incident was given to the police by
PW1. Ex.P1 is the first report of incident.
3. The trial court assessed the evidence of
11 witnesses and 20 documents to record
conviction against the accused.
4. The main findings of the trial court are
that though Bangaramma did not give dying
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
declaration, the incident was seen by PW2, the
mother of the deceased. The evidence of PWs.2, 3
and 6 discloses that Bangaramma herself stated
before all of them that her husband set fire to her.
Bangaramma had suffered 85% of burn injuries
and in the state of pain it is highly impossible to
hold that Bangaramma would have thought of
falsely implicate her husband. The doctor who
conducted post mortem examination gave a final
opinion stating that death was due to asphyxia
secondary to burn injuries. The soot particles
were detected in the lungs. The presence of
kerosene was also detected when the clothes of
Bangaramma were subjected to examination at
FSL. In these circumstances, it can be very well
said that the evidence placed by the prosecution is
believable. The trial court has further opined that
in case there are minor contradictions or omissions
in the testimonies of the prominent witnesses,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
they cannot be given so much of importance as
they are all rustic villagers and it is highly
impossible to expect from them a stereo type
deposition. The testimonies of the witnesses find
support from the evidence of PW8 and PW11 who
conducted investigation and therefore the
prosecution was able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
5. We have heard the arguments of Sri
Adinarayan, learned Advocate for the appellant/
accused and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-
II for the respondent/State.
6. It was the argument of Sri Adinarayan
that PW1 was not an eye witness to the incident.
Only after coming to know that Bangaramma had
caught fire, she would give a report to the police
and thereby set the law into motion.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
6.1. According to prosecution PW2 is an eye
witness. From her evidence, an inference can be
drawn that she was not an eye witness. Because
she has admitted in the cross examination that the
marriage of her granddaughter had been fixed to
be held a week after the incident, and in
connection with the marriage, she had been to the
house of her another daughter Gangamma and
returned to Hiregodu only after the marriage. This
being her clear admission in the cross
examination, it is not possible to believe that she
was present at the time when Bangaramma caught
fire. Her evidence is very inconsistent and it only
shows that being interested to implicate the
accused, she has made a lot of improvements and
thereby given rise to discrepancies which lead to
discard her evidence in totality.
6.2. PW3, PW4 and PW6 have stated that
Bangaramma revealed before them that her
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
husband i.e., accused set fire to her. Referring to
the evidence of these witnesses, Sri Adinarayan
argued that their testimonies cannot be believed
for the reason that Bangaramma had suffered
extensive burn injuries. Her mouth was burnt and
she was crying of pain. In a situation like this, it
is highly impossible that Bangaramma was able to
speak and tell her sisters and nephews that her
husband set fire. The only inference that can be
drawn is that they being very close relatives of
Bangaramma have stated falsehood before the
court. The accused was very much available in the
village as he was arrested there. In these set of
doubtful circumstances, the trial court should not
have convicted the accused and hence the appeal
deserves to be allowed and judgment of the trial
court set aside.
7. Sri Vijayakumar Majage argued that PW2
is an eye witness and her evidence clearly shows
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
how the incident occurred. Her testimony is
further corroborated by the testimonies of PWs.3,
4 and 6. They also speak about the harassment on
Bangaramma. There are no good reasons to
discard the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 6. He
further argued that because Bangaramma had
sustained 95% burn injuries, the police did not
think of obtaining her dying declaration. However
it has come on record that soon after the incident
Bangaramma herself stated before her sisters and
nephews that her husband i.e., accused set fire to
her. The testimonies of these witnesses is not
discredited in any manner. The accused also
confessed before PW9 about committing the crime.
It amounts to extra judicial confession. Taken as
a whole, it very well appears that the prosecution
was able to establish its case beyond reasonable
doubt and there is no scope to interfere with the
sentence awarded by the trial court.
– 10 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
8. We have considered the arguments and
perused the entire records.
9. The analysis of evidence is like this. PW1
is the nephew of the deceased. He was not an eye
witness. Soon after he coming to know that her
aunt had caught fire he went to the house of his
aunt and came to know from PW2 as to how the
incident occurred. Then he made arrangements for
taking Bangaramma to McGann Hospital,
Shivamogga. Ex.P1 is the first report of incident
made by PW1.
10. According to prosecution PW2, the
mother of Bangaramma is an eye witness. Giving
details of the quarrels that used to take place
between Bangaramma and the accused, she stated
that a year ago around 4.00pm a quarrel broke out
between Bangaramma and the accused and it went
on till 6.00pm. In that course the accused brought
kerosene from the kitchen and poured it on
– 11 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
Bangaramma. He lit fire. When she rushed to the
rescue, accused threatened her also. When she
raised voice, the accused ran away from that
place. She extinguished the fire by pouring water.
Sometime later her another daughter Janakamma-
PW3 came to that place and she informed the
matter to her son PW1. She stated about spot
panchanama conducted by the police on the next
day.
11. PW3-Janakamma is the elder sister of
Bangaramma. She too states that accused was not
treating his wife properly and he used to quarrel
with her. About the incident her evidence is that
PW2 came running to her house which is situated
at a distance of half a kilometer from the house of
Bangaramma. When PW2 told her that accused
had set fire to Bangaramma, she rushed to that
place and saw the burn injuries on Bangaramma.
– 12 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
When she questioned as to what happened, the
daughter told her that accused set fire to her.
12. PW4 is the son of PW3. His evidence also
shows that accused was beating his wife having
consumed liquor. He has stated further that the
marriage of daughter of Gangamma was to take
place on 11.05.2014 and when the accused and
Bangaramma were invited to the marriage, the
accused said that he would not attend the
marriage stating that when he was constructing
the house no body supported him. He also took
objection when his wife wanted to attend the
marriage. In regard to the incident, his evidence
is that he received a phone call from his mother
around 7.00pm on 02.05.2014 that the accused
had set fire to Bangaramma. Immediately he went
to Hosanagara hospital, as the doctors told that
Bangaramma was to be taken to McGann Hospital,
Shivamogga, she was shifted to Shivamogga.
– 13 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
13. PW6 Channamma is the mother of PW1
and another sister of Bangaramma. Her evidence
is also to the effect that she received a telephone
call from her elder sister on 02.05.2014 and came
to know that Bangaramma had sustained burn
injuries. Immediately her son went to the town
and brought a car to go to Hiregodu village. She
saw Bangaramma crying loudly because of pain.
When she enquired her, the latter told that
accused set fire to her. She stated that her son
then took Bangaramma to hospital.
14. PW9 is another witness whose evidence
requires to be examined. The prosecution
examined this witness to establish through him
that the accused was harassing his wife and that
on 02.05.2014 at 05.45pm he received a telephone
call from the accused and came to know from him
that a quarrel had taken place between him and
Bangaramma and in that course, he poured
– 14 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
kerosene on her and set fire. Actually PW9 did not
establish this aspect. But he gave evidence in the
other way that at 05.30pm the accused made a call
to him and told that his wife herself had set fire
and he also stated that the accused gave the
telephone to his wife who spoke to him and said
that she herself poured kerosene and set fire to
her.
15. PW11 received FIR, conducted
investigation partially and handed over the same
to PW8, who then completed investigation and filed
charge sheet.
16. After referring to the evidence of the
witnesses as stated above, we make it very clear
that there is no need to discuss the evidence
regarding conducting spot mahazar and seizing of
clothes of the deceased Bangaramma, and the
kerosene can as the police followed the routine
procedure during investigation.
– 15 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
17. It is the evidence of the prominent
witnesses which require to be assessed with
reference to answers given by them in the cross
examination.
18. Firstly we may refer to the evidence of
PW5-the doctor who conducted post mortem
examination. The clear evidence of PW5 is that
Bangaramma had sustained 2 n d or 3 r d degree burn
injuries. The portion below the abdomen, the
waist, palms and the feet had not been burnt. But
she noticed injuries on the face. Her scalp heirs
and eye lashes were completely burnt. On
dissection she found presence of soot particles in
the stomach. Lungs had been turned to cherry red
colour. She gave her opinion that Bangaramma
died due to asphyxia as a result of burn injuries.
Seeing soot particles, she opined that kerosene
might have been used for setting fire to
Bangaramma.
– 16 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
19. Now if the opinion of PW5 was that
Bangaramma had suffered severe and 3 rd degree
burn injuries to the extent of 80 to 85%, the
question that would obviously arise whether she
was able to speak immediately after catching fire.
Or otherwise, whether the testimonies of PWs.2, 3,
4 and 6 is believable or not.
20. Firstly if we assess the evidence of PW2,
who is projected as an eye witness, it is possible
to hold that she might not be present at the time
when the incident occurred because of her clear
admission in the cross examination that her
another daughter Gangamma had taken her to her
house 15 days before the marriage for making
preparations to the marriage and that PW2 return
to the village Hiregodu after the marriage. This
was the answer highlighted by the learned counsel
for the appellant. This answer clearly indicate that
PW2 might have gone to the house of her daughter
– 17 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
Gangamma. If she had been to Gangamma’s
house, a doubt arises whether she was really
present at the time the incident occurred. Though
her answer is that she returned to Hiregodu after
the marriage, an inference can be drawn that after
learning about the incident, she might have come
to Hiregodu village. However, no inference as to
her presence at the time of incident can be drawn
just because in the examination-in-chief she stated
that she was present when the accused set fire to
her daughter. This inference is possible to be
drawn because her further answers in the cross
examination to the effect that she clearly admits
to have not stated all that she has stated in the
examination-in-chief before the police during
investigation. She admits that she did not give
such statements. So her answers in the cross
examination are self destructive.
– 18 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
21. Now the evidence of PW3 and 6 is seen,
these witnesses have stated that Bangaramma
revealed before them that accused set fire to her
when they went to her house after learning the
incident. The truth in the evidence of these two
witnesses in this regard can be disbelieved
because of the entry made in Ex.P17, the
intimation given by the Medical Officer of McGann
Hospital, Shivamogga to the police sub inspector,
Doddapet police station, Shivamogga. It is clearly
stated in Ex.P17 that the general condition of the
patient is not satisfactory. It is not disputed that
Bangaramma was first taken to Hosanagara
hospital and thereafter to McGann Hospital,
Shivamogga. In Ex.P17 time of examination is
mentioned as 11.55pm on 02.05.2014. The
prosecution has not examined the doctor who first
saw Bangaramma at Hosanagara hospital. Now till
such time as Bangaramma was brought to
– 19 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
Shivamogga hospital, if her physical condition was
not satisfactory as mentioned in Ex.P17 and if PW3
and 6 would state that Bangaramma herself
revealed that her husband set fire to her, it
becomes very difficult to rely upon their
testimonies. Obviously a doubt arises whether
Bangaramma, having sustained severe burn
injuries was really able to speak soon after
catching fire. It is necessary to make a note here
that PW6 has clearly stated that the face of
Bangaramma had been burnt. Same is the opinion
of doctor also. If the face had been burnt, it is
impossible to even imagine that Bangaramma was
able to speak. Added to this PW4 has stated that
since Bangaramma was crying loudly he did not
ask her anything. He too has stated about injuries
sustained by Bangaramma. It is very interesting
to mention here that PW4 has clearly admitted in
the cross examination that when he, his mother,
– 20 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
his aunt and Nagaraju were at Shivamogga
hospital, they all discussed for a considerable time
the manner in which the complaint was to be
lodged. Therefore the deliberations that might
have taken place before lodging the complaint can
be inferred from the evidence of PW4.
22. PW9 entirely demolishes the case of
prosecution by giving evidence in the other way.
He does not support the prosecution. Rather he
states that accused himself made a call to him and
told that his wife Bangaramma set fire to herself.
The other statement of PW9 in the examination in
chief is that he spoke to Bangaramma directly
when the accused gave the telephone to her and
came to know from her that she set fire to herself.
This statement becomes believable only if she was
able to speak; however from the suggestion given
to PW9 by the public prosecutor while cross
– 21 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
examining him indicates that the accused had
called him over the phone.
23. An inference that PW2 can’t be an eye
witness can be inferred. The inquest as per Ex.P6
is drawn. What is written is that PW2 saw the
accused bringing his wife from inside the house
and then ran away from that place seeing PW2.
This is found in the statement of Ramesh i.e.,
PW4. If what is recorded is correct, then PW2
cannot be an eye witness. She just happened to
see the accused bringing his wife from inside the
house and thereafter she might have passed on
the information to her other daughters. Therefore
in our opinion it is highly impossible to believe
that PW2 was an eye witness and that
Bangaramma was able to make a statement before
her sisters very soon after the incident. Their
interestedness in implicating the accused in the
background of some quarrels that used to take
– 22 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018
place between the accused and Bangaramma
cannot be ruled out.
24. If for any reason the findings recorded by
the trial court are also possible to be taken, the
accused becomes entitled to benefit of doubt
because of two views being possible to be taken.
Therefore we arrive at a conclusion that the
impugned judgment cannot be sustained and it
requires to be set aside. Hence the following:
ORDER
The appeal succeeds.
The judgment dated 15.09.2015
passed in S.C.No.168/2014 on the file of
the III Additional Sessions Judge,
Shivamogga is set-aside.
The accused is acquitted of the
offences charged against him. H e is set at
liberty. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
– 23 –
NC: 2024:KHC:12398-DB
CRL.A No. 625 of 2018Send back the trial court records with
a copy of this jud gment forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
