IMPORTANT POINTS
Consistent evidence of four witnesses supported by FSL report, post-mortem report, recovery of material articles from place of incident and other material on record cannot be brushed aside to acquit the accused.
Few witnesses turning hostile does not affect prosecution case where reliable witnesses are consistent in their deposition.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 03.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.1040 of 2000 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/State herein.

2. It is necessary to set out the facts hereinbelow in detail to appreciate the issues arising in this appeal.

3. The appellant (accused) was married to Rukmini Bai (deceased) on 04.06.1994. On the same day, the younger sister of Rukmani Bai, namely, Sonabai was also married to the appellant's younger brother-Bhimanand. Both the marriages were performed in Lokeshwar Temple at a place called Lokapur.

4. After marriage, the appellant, who was serving as a Constable in the Police Station, Kaladagi in the District Bagalkot went to Kaladagi with Rukmini Bai. So far as the appellant's younger brother was concerned, he was working as a Constable in CRPF at Nagaland. He also proceeded to Nagaland with his wife.

5. On 02.10.1995, father of Rukmini Bai Eknath (PW1) received a wireless message that Rukmini Bai was admitted to Government Hospital at Bagalkot for burn injuries. On receipt of the message, Eknath and some elder persons of the village immediately left for Bagalkot. On reaching the hospital, Eknath found the condition of Rukmini Bai her daughter to be very critical.

6. When Eknath asked from Rukmini Bai the cause of sustaining injuries by her, she first started crying on seeing him and then said that her husband (appellant) had poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. Later eventually around 6.15 p.m. on the same day, Rukmini Bai succumbed to her injuries while in the hospital.

7. Eknath (PW1) then lodged the FIR in PS Kaladagi on the same day against the appellant (FIR No.99/95) for commission of offences under Sections 498(A) read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). The Investigating Officer registered the FIR and started investigation. He recorded the statements of several persons, got the post mortem of the dead body, obtained F.S.L. Report and after completion of the investigation and collecting necessary evidence, filed the chargesheet against the appellant. The case was then committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

8. The Sessions Judge by judgment/order dated 31.05.2000 acquitted the appellant of all the charges. It was held that the prosecution was not able to prove the charge of demand of dowry against the appellant. It was also held that the prosecution was also not able to prove that Rukmini Bai suffered homicidal death. In other words, the Sessions Judge held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and the murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.

9. The State felt aggrieved by the appellant's acquittal and filed appeal in the High Court of Karnataka seeking leave to appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the order of the acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge.

10. By impugned order, the High Court granted leave to file appeal and later allowed the State's appeal. The High Court by impugned order reversed the order of the acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge and convicted the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. The High Court held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, in clear terms, proved both the charges, namely, the demand of dowry and murder beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was liable to be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 498A of IPC. The High Court, accordingly, sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment. It is against this judgment/order of the High Court, the appellant (accused) has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

11. Heard Mr. Mallikarjun S. Mylar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel for the re