Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.RACHAIAH, J.
State Of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Shantha @ Shanthasetty – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1151 of 2011
Decided on : 05-05-2022
The State - Acquittal - Sec. 341, 354, 323, 504, 306 of IPC - The State appealed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court for the mentioned offenses. The appeal was based on the dying declaration of the victim and the endorsement by the doctor regarding her fitness to make a statement. The court re-evaluated the evidence and found the accused guilty for the offenses under Sec. 341, 354, 323, 504, and 306 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The victim was insulted and assaulted by the accused, leading her to commit suicide by setting herself on fire. The prosecution relied on the dying declaration of the victim and the endorsement by the doctor regarding her fitness to make a statement. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the State appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declaration and the endorsement by the doctor were genuine and inspired confidence. It held that the trial court failed to appreciate the dying declaration and other independent witnesses, and the State had grounds to interfere with the acquittal. The court allowed the appeal and convicted the accused for the mentioned offenses.
Issues: (a) Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offenses under Ss. 341, 354, 323, 504, and 306 of IPC? (b) Whether the State - Appellant has made out ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court, Kollegala, in S.C.No.22/2009?
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evaluation of the dying declaration, the endorsement by the doctor, and the evidence of other witnesses. It emphasized the principles of the dying declaration and its admissibility, as well as the requirement of the doctor's certificate for the fitness of the victim to make a statement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgment and order of acquittal, and convicted the accused for the offenses under Sec. 341, 354, 323, 504, and 306 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment and pay fines for each offense, with the sentences to run concurrently.
JUDGMENT :
1. The State - the appellant herein has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed in S.C.No.22/2009 dtd. 3/6/2011 by the Fast Track Court, Kollegala, for the offence under Sec. 341, 354, 323, 504, 306 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
It is the case of the prosecution that, on 12/6/2008 at about 3.00 p.m., the Victim was standing in front of her house at Kunthurmole village. The accused came near her house and quarreled with her stating why she had quarreled with his wife in the Sangha. The Accused further dragged her nighty and caught her tuft and assaulted her with hands and also abused her in filthy language. He further told her that "go and die instead of alive". The accused has insulted the Victim in a public place. The Victim, after having been insulted, decided to end her life and brought the kerosene tin and poured the kerosene on her, and set the fire herself. Consequently, she has sustained burning injury. The Victim's husband who was sitting in the nearby place of the locality, had heard the sound of quarrel from the side of his house and rushed to the spot and saw that his wife was igniting. Immediately P.W.2 and other co-villagers have shifted the Victim to the hospital. There she succumbed to the injuries on 17/6/2008 at about 12.30 a.m.
3. At the time of treatment, the Doctor has informed the police about the intention of the deceased to make her statement about the incident. The Police Head Constable No.136 visited the hospital on 12/6/2008 at about 18.30 hours and recorded the statement of the Victim and registered the case in Crime No.114/2008 under Sec. 354, 341 and 323 of IPC. Later, after the death of the Victim, a requisition was made to incorporate the provision under sec. 306 of IPC. Accordingly, a charge-sheet came to be filed by the respondent - Police for the offences under Sec. 354, 341, 323, 504 and 306 of IPC.
4. Since the offence under sec. 306 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court for further course of action. The Sessions Court framed the charges for the above said offences, read over and explained the same in the language known to the accused. The accused denied it as false, and he claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses, i.e., PW.1 to PW.9, and got marked the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and identified the material object M.O.1.
6. The trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary evidence, opined that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Sri.K.N.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP, vehemently contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court/trial Court is erroneous, contrary to the material on record, cannot be sustained under the law, and liable to be set - aside. Learned HCGP for the State further contended that PW.2 is the deceased's husband, and PW.3 is an independent witness. Evidence of PW.6 - The Doctor, who treated the injured and endorsed the statement recorded by PW.8, states that the victim was fit to state the incident. The law is well settled that a conviction can be based, only on the dying declaration, if it inspires the confidence of the Court. Here in this case, the Victim has spoken about the incident, and the same has been recorded by the Head Constable and endorsed by the Doctor regarding her State of mind; therefore, it would be sufficient to convict the accused. The trial Court ignored to appreciate the same, which led to the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the learned HCGP sought to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, Sri.N.S.Sampangiramaiah, learned Amicus Curiae who i
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and evaluation of the dying declaration, the requirement of the doctor's certificate for the fitness of the victim to make a stat....
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if they are proven to be reliable, but lack of corroboration or inconsistencies can lead to acquittal.
Murder – Factor which distinguishes culpable homicide from murder is presence of special mens rea which consists of mental attitudes indicated in Section 300 IPC and unless one of it is attributable ....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in dying declarations can lead to acquittal.
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if found trustworthy; the accused must explain circumstances leading to the victim's death.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and acquittals should not be interfered with unless found to be perverse or unsupported by evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
