SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, RAJESH RAI K., JJ.
Thippeswamy @ Thippeshi S/o Nagendrappa @ Nagaraja – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 829 of 2017
Decided On : 26-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mohan Kumara D.
For the Respondent: Vijayakumar Majage.

Point of Law: Dying declaration cannot be treated as wholly trustworthy as it is shrouded by many doubts.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 498A, 304B - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 209, 313, 233, 374 (2) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 – Murder offence – Dowry death - Appeal against conviction - Accused No. 1 is said to have doused kerosene on Manjamma’s body and Accused No. 2 had set her ablaze and it is stated that Accused No. 3 instigated other accused persons so as to commit offences – Several witnesses have turned hostile to case of prosecution and their contradictory statements have been got marked - Para 31.

Finding of the Court: There is no corroboration on part of prosecution to believe versions made by deceased which was recorded as per Exhibits P21 and P25 - Without considering fact, Trial Court has rendered conviction for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC - When offences under Section 498A, 304 B read with Section 34 IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act ended in acquittal, prosecution, ought not to have convicted accused for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC unless prosecution has proved guilt against accused beyond all reasonable doubt - No cogent and consistent evidence has been facilitated on part of prosecution and despite of infirmities and inconsistencies in statement of witnesses - Judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered is hereby set-aside.

Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

K. SOMASHEKAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Court of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in S.C. No. 13/2014 dated 08.01.2016, convicting the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, while acquitting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, the appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3 were directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellants have preferred the present appeal seeking to allow the appeal and to thereby acquit appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for the grounds urged therein.

2. Heard, the learned counsel Shri Mohan Kumara D for the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Addl. SPP Shri Vijayakumar Majage for the State. Perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in S.C. No. 13/2014 including the exhibited documents.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

    It transpires from the case of the prosecution that the marriage of accused No. 1 namely Thippeswamy was performed with deceased Manjamma @ Manjula as per the customs prevailing in their society and their marriage was performed on 05.06.2010. At the time of marriage, the accused had received Rs.12,000/-as dowry. Manjamma was residing along with her husband and in-laws in her matrimonial home, after their marriage. It is stated that while leading her marital life, all the accused persons used to give physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased Manjamma, by demanding additional dowry of Rs.25,000/-. It is stated that particularly on 14.10.2013 at 8.00 a.m., all the accused persons had picked up a quarrel with the deceased Manjamma and confined her in a room bolting the door of the said room and had given physical and mental harassment to her. All the three of the accused namely the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Manjamma, are said to have hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit her murder. In the said attempt, Accused No. 1/Thippeswamy is said to have doused kerosene on Manjamma’s body and Accused No. 2/Nagendrappa had set her ablaze and it is stated that Accused No. 3/Jayamma instigated the other accused persons so as to commit the said offences. As a result of her hue and cry out of severe burns, Manjamma is said to have taken to hospital by the neighbourers. However, in view of sustaining severe burn injuries, she died while under treatment in the hospital. On the basis of the said allegations, a complaint was filed by the complainant. Thereafter, criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR and crime was registered against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Subsequent to criminal law being set into motion by recording an FIR, the Investigating Officer had taken up the case for investigation and had investigated the case thoroughly. During investigation, the I.O. had conducted the spot mahazar/Exhibit P1 in the presence of panch witnesses, namely PW-1, PW-2, PW-9 and PW-24, who have subscribed their signatures to the mahazar. Further, inquest mahazar/Exhibit P10 was held over the dead body by the concerned authority in the presence of PWs 3, 10, 17 who have subscribed their signatures. Exhibit P21 is the Dying declaration said to have been recorded by PW-17/Kantharaja being the responsible Taluk Executive Magistrate. Exhibit P25 is also the statement of the deceased Manjamma which was r

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top