Important pointIn an appeal against acquittal if appellate Court comes to conclusion that findings of the court below were wholly unreasonable or perverse or suffered from serious illegality or misreading of evidence, appellate Court will be justified to set aside the such an order of acquittal.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 201 and 498A—Respondent/accused convicted for offence by Trial Court and conviction set aside by High Court in appeal—State Appeal—Prosecution case that respondent/accused strangulated his wife to death and set her along with her infant child aged around 1½ years on fire—Respondent himself made a report to police station that his wife along with her child were burnt in an accidental fire—Post mortem examination revealed that cause of death of wife of accused was to be asphyxia due to throttling and cause of death of the child was shock due to burns—High Court found prosecution witnesses on the point of existence of motive not reliable as their evidence was inconsistent—Approach was unreasonable—Large number of witnesses were consistent as to the amounts demanded though there could be no consistency because if respondent demanded different amounts at different times—No neighbouring witness came to support the fact that deceased was being ill-treated could not be a reason to doubt prosecution case as it was not expected a newly married daughter-in-law to go about in neighbourhood complaining against her husband—Merely because in one of the letters written by deceased she had not complained about ill-treatment was no ground to hold she was never ill-treated—High Court wrongly ignored medical evidence that death was on account of asphyxia due to throttling for merely that no rope was recovered by police from the spot—Injuries found on deceased were consistent only with the hypothesis that she died before she was burnt—Respondent having been seen in the house a little before the house was put on fire, evidence implicating in the offence was conclusive—If appellant court came to a conclusion that findings of the court below were wholly unreasonable or perverse or suffered serious illegality including misreading of evidence, appellant court will be justified in setting aside order of acquittal—Conviction of respondent was liable to be restored

Judgment

B.P. Singh, J.—This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the State of Karnataka against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated December 18, 1998 in Criminal Appeal No. 640 of 1996 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent herein was allowed and he was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The respondent was tried by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1994 charged of offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A IPC, and alternatively under Section 304B IPC. The learned Sessions Judge by his Judgment and Order dated 27.6.1996 found the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He also found him guilty of the offence under Section 201 IPC for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. Under Section 498A IPC, the respondent was sentenced to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment. As noticed earlier, the High Court set aside the aforesaid Judgment and Order of the Sessions Judge.

2. An occurrence is said to have taken place in the morning of 22nd November, 1993. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent strangulated to death his wife Veena and thereafter set her on fire along with her infant child aged a year and a half. The respondent himself reported the matter to the local police making it appear that the deceased and her child had died in an accidental fire, but the post mortem disclosed that Veena had died of throttling and not on account of burn injuries suffered by her.

3. The facts of the case may be briefly noticed.

The deceased Veena was the daughter of Laxmamma (PW1) and was married to the respondent on June 3, 1991. Laxmamma (PW1) is a resident of Shimoga while the respondent at the time of his marriage was a resident of Gundlupet. A male child was born to the couple on March 7, 1992. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent out of greed had been pressing his wife (deceased) to get money from her mother so that he could start a business. There is evidence on record to indicate that the respondent then was employed in a private firm and was looking for better opportunities in life. Ultimately with the help of one Mr. Umapathy who was then a Special Deputy Commissioner, and who was another son-in-law of PW1, the respondent was able to secure the job of a Lecturer in the Government Pre University College at Nesargi in the district of Belgaum. On 26th July, 1993 respondent joined as a lecturer in the aforesaid college and started living there. On or about 25.10.1993 he came to the house of his mother-in-law at Shimoga and took away his wife Veena to Nesargi. It appears that a sister of the deceased namely Vijaya (PW11) was to get married and the betrothal ceremony was to be held on 25.10.1993 at Bangalore. In that connection most of the family members had gone to Bangalore but some of them remained at Shimoga to look after the house. The case of the prosecution is that despite the request made to the respondent, he refused to attend the marriage ceremony of Vijaya (PW11). Ultimately, the marriage of Vijaya (PW11) took place on 18.11.1993 with PW24 at Bangalore. Four days thereafter, on 22.11.1993 the occurrence took place in which Veena as well as her child lost their lives. The evidence on record discloses that in the morning at about 9.30 A.M. the respondent made an oral report to the Station House Officer at Nesargi to the effect that his wife had been burnt along with her child in an accidental fire. Two Head Constables of police came to the place of occurrence and pushed the door open. They tried to extinguish the fire. It was then that they discovered that Veena and her child were both dead and their bodies were burnt. After returning to the police station the report of the respondent was recorded which is Exhibit P-13 and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 99

Important pointIn an appeal against acquittal if appellate Court comes to conclusion that findings of the court below were wholly unreasonable or perverse or suffered from serious illegality or misreading of evidence, appellate Court will be justified to set aside the such an ­order of acquittal.

Important pointIn an appeal against acquittal if appellate Court comes to conclusion that findings of the court below were wholly unreasonable or perverse or suffered from serious illegality or misreading of evidence, appellate Court will be justified to set aside the such an order of acquittal.