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
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:
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on dying declaration as a sole basis for conviction under Section 302/34 of IPC, the interpretation of Section 498A of IPC, and the ap....
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborating dying declarations and established that dowry-related cruelty leading to death constitutes an offence under Section 304B IPC.
Dowry Death - Dying declaration - Conviction can be based on dying declaration alone without corroboration if the court finds the dying declaration trust-worthy and genuine.
The reliability of dying declaration, the role of hostile witnesses, and the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of death due to septicemia.
The dying declaration was the sole basis for conviction, and the distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code was cr....
The dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is true, reliable, and recorded in accordance with law. The cause of death due to septicaemia led to the classification of the offence....
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if proven credible, establishing link between dowry demands and resulting harassment leading to the victim's death.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.