Back
convicts driver Abdul Sharief for killing six in petrol fire
In a significant reversal, the on , set aside the acquittal of Abdul Sharief, a bus driver, and convicted him for the murder of six persons by setting their house on fire with petrol. The bench of Justice H.P.Sandesh and Justice B.Pramod found the trial court's reasoning "" and held that the prosecution had proved its case .
The 2013 Mysuru petrol fire: A fatal grudge
The tragedy occurred in the early hours of , at a house in Mysuru. The accused, Abdul Sharief, harboured resentment against a doctor residing there, allegedly over unpaid medical fees and the doctor's refusal to provide slow poison to kill Sharief's first wife. Three days before the incident, Sharief had thrown a powder at the house. On the night of April 11-12, around 3 a.m., Sharief poured petrol through a window and ignited it with a matchstick, causing a massive blaze. Six occupants, including the doctor, died in the fire. The doctor's daughter (PW1) and her nephew (PW2) survived with burn injuries and identified Sharief as the perpetrator.
Trial court acquittal and state appeal
The , acquitted Sharief in , citing contradictions in witness testimony, lack of , and flaws in the investigation. The State of Karnataka appealed, arguing that the trial court had ignored crucial evidence, including the eyewitness accounts of injured survivors, forensic reports confirming petrol residues, and the accused's unexplained burn injuries.
High Court finds perversity in trial court's judgment
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and concluded that the trial court had misread the material on record. The bench noted that PW1 and PW2, both injured eyewitnesses, had consistently stated that Sharief poured petrol and set the fire. Their presence in the house was undisputed. The court also highlighted the report (Ex.P82), which confirmed petroleum residues on seized articles—a fact the trial court had overlooked.
A critical piece of evidence was the accused's own burn injuries. PW11, Sharief's wife, testified that he was absent from home on the night of the incident and returned at 5 a.m. with burn marks on his forehead and leg. The doctor (PW10) confirmed these injuries through a wound certificate (Ex.P76). When questioned under about these injuries, Sharief offered no explanation. Citing the 's ruling in , the High Court held that an accused's failure to explain can serve as an additional link in the .
The bench also criticized the trial court for not summoning a key witness—Raju, who allegedly sold petrol to Sharief—despite his statement being recorded by the investigating officer. The court invoked the principles from and , emphasizing that a trial judge must not be a and should actively seek the truth.
Key Observations
"The very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous and when the accused did not explain regarding injuries found on him... The Trial Court fails to take note of the gravity of the offence when six persons have lost their life."
"The accused's silence or false explanation entitles the Court to tilt in favour of the prosecution case invoking Section 106 and ."
"It is the duty of a Judge to and for that purpose he may 'ask any question, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact, relevant or irrelevant'."
Conviction and upcoming sentence hearing
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and convicted Sharief under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 436 (mischief by fire) of the . The court directed the and the State Public Prosecutor to ensure the accused's presence on , for a hearing on the quantum of sentence. The bench reserved its judgment on sentence, indicating that a life term or stricter punishment may be imposed given the heinous nature of the crime.
