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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. SURESH KUMAR, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ.

Rejinold Rosario @ Baiju, S/o. Henry Rosario – Appellant
Versus
The Circle Inspector Of Police, Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode-673 633 and Anr. – Respondents
CRL.A No. 219 Of 2017
Decided On : 25-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. T.G. Rajendran.
For the Respondents: Smt. Ambika Devi S., Spl. Public Prosecutor.

IMPORTANT POINT
A dying declaration recorded by a competent authority holds significant weight in establishing the circumstances of a crime, while the absence of evidence supporting the specific elements of cruelty under Section 498A IPC can lead to acquittal on that charge.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder and Cruelty by Husband - IPC Sections 302, 498A - The court discussed Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), emphasizing the definitions and implications of murder and cruelty. Section 302 pertains to punishment for murder, while Section 498A addresses cruelty by a husband towards his wife. The court interpreted the evidence, including dying declarations and witness testimonies, to establish the accused's guilt under Section 302, while finding insufficient evidence to support the charge under Section 498A.

Fact of the Case:

The accused, husband of the victim Bindu, was charged with murder (Section 302 IPC) and cruelty (Section 498A IPC) after Bindu suffered fatal burn injuries allegedly inflicted by the accused, who poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Bindu died a month later in the hospital.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty of murder based on consistent testimonies and dying declarations from the victim, while it determined that the evidence did not support the charge of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC were sustainable, and whether the conviction for cruelty under Section 498A IPC was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate, corroborated by witness testimonies, was credible and sufficient to establish the accused's guilt for murder. However, the evidence did not substantiate the charge of cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part; the conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC were confirmed, while the conviction and sentence for cruelty under Section 498A IPC were set aside.

JUDGMENT :

(M.B. Snehalatha, J.) :

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused in S.C.No.572/2016 on the file of Court of Session, Kozhikode whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC.

2. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:

Victim in this case is one Bindu. Accused is her husband. They were living together at their residence at Kuttikkattoor. Accused used to subject the victim to cruelty and used to torture her. On 12.7.2015 at 1.30 pm, with intent to commit murder of the victim, accused poured kerosene over the body of the victim and set ablaze her. The victim who suffered burn injuries, succumbed to the injuries on 12.8.2015 while she was undergoing treatment at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode.

3. After investigation, final report against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Upon committal, the case was made over to the Special Additional Sessions Court (Marad cases), Kozhikode.

4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. Before the trial court, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 24, marked Exts.P1 to P25. MO1 is the material object. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. He maintained innocence. On the side of the accused DW1 and 2 were examined. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

6. The point which arises for consideration is whether the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the accused by the trial court is sustainable or not.

7. It is an admitted fact that the accused and the victim were husband and wife and they were living together at Kuttikattoor with their minor children. There is no dispute over the fact that Bindu who was the wife of the accused sustained burn injuries on 12.7.2015 at around 1.30 pm at the residence wherein she along with her husband and children were residing. Undisputably, the victim Bindu died on 12.8.2015 at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode while she was undergoing treatment at the said hospital for the burn injuries.

8. PW15 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Bindu and Ext.P12 is the postmortem certificate. The ante-mortem injuries noted in Ext.P12 are:

    “Non heeling burns with yellowish infected areas seen on face, ears, neck, front and back of chest and right upper limb upto the wrist. Heeling burns over an area 10x7 cm on inner aspect of left arm 10 cm. below armpit (30% of total body surface area involved)”

9. In Ext.P12 the opinion as to the cause of death stated by the doctor is that the deceased died due to deep burns involving 30% of the total body surface area and its complications including pneumonia.

10. The prosecution also caused production of Ext.P5 case sheet and examined PW18 doctor. Ext.P5 case sheet in respect of victim Bindu and Ext.P2 postmortem certificate coupled with the evidence tendered by the doctors viz. PWs15 and 18 would reveal that the victim Bindu who suffered burn injuries on 12.7.2015 was admitted at Medical College Hospital, Kozh

      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