1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200096/2014

BETWEEN:

BABUMIYAN,

S/O ABDULSAB MOMIN,

AGE: 52 YEARS,

R/O RANJOL.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRASHANT S. KUMMAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE THROUGH

SEDAM POLICE STATION,

REP BY ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT GULBARGA BENCH-585103.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE THE

JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.09.2014 IN SESSIONS

CASE No.61/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS

JUDGE

AT

GULBARGA,

WHEREIN

CONVICTING

THE

ACCUSED/APPELLANT PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 306

R/W 34 OF IPC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 08.09.2014 passed in

S.C.No.61/2012 for the offence punishable under Section

306 of IPC sentencing the accused for a period of two

years and also to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-.

2.

The factual matrix of the case is that on

31.03.2010 at about 5.00 p.m. on the road in front of the

house of P.W.1 Devindrappa situated at Ranjol village,

accused No.1 along with split up accused No.2 with a

common intention has wrongfully restrained P.W.1 and

prevented him to proceed in the direction in which he had

right to proceed. It is the specific case that accused No.1

along with accused No.2 in furtherance of their common

intention insulted Devindrappa and gave provocation to

him knowing fully well that such provocation would make

the said Devindrappa to commit the offence of breach of

public peace. It is also the case of the prosecution that

both the accused voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1

3

Devindrappa by assaulting him and due to the said

humiliation the deceased Sujata, daughter of P.W.1, set

ablaze

her

and

sustained

burn

injuries.

She

has

succumbed to the burn injuries on 05.04.2010. The

prosecution in order to prove the charges relied upon the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 13 and also got marked documents

Exs.P1 to P16 and also got marked material objects MO.1

to 3. The Trial Court after considering both oral and

documentary evidence convicted the accused for the

offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC and

sentenced. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this

Court.

3.

The main contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant herein before this Court is that the Trial

Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for

the said offence and evidences have not been properly

appreciated. In the alleged statement of the deceased

recorded by the SHO in the hospital, the doctor, except

putting his signature, has not endorsed regarding the state

4

of mind and the condition of the patient. The evidence of

the doctor is not based on any document rather he said

that he has given the evidence only by his memory without

bringing the MLC register. It is a relevant document to

know the condition of the patient. P.W.9 says burn

injuries to the extent of 60% but P.W.13 in his evidence

says that burn injuries are more than 90% and this

contradiction has not been considered by the Trial Court.

The learned counsel would also submit that none of the

witnesses examined before the Trial Court have supported

the case of the prosecution, even the mother and father of

the deceased. When such being the case, the Trial Court

ought not have convicted the accused and sentenced for

the said offence. Though the Trial Court came to the

conclusion that other offences are not proved but with

regard to abetment to commit suicide also nothing is found

on record. Only based on the statement of the deceased

in terms of Ex.P22 and also evidence of P.W.9, the Trial

Court has committed an error in convict