Sri T V Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10359 Kant

                                                R

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR

                            AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2067 OF 2016

BETWEEN:
Sri. T.V. Manjunatha
Aged about 40 years
S/o. Late Venkataiah
Resident of Badavanahalli
Village, Dodderi Hobli,
Madhugiri Taluk,
Tumkur District-572 101.
                                            ...Appellant

(By Sri. V. Kodandaramegowda - Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
By Badavanahalli Police
By SPP, High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore-560 001.
                                           ...Respondent

(By Sri. Vijaykumar Majage - Advocate)
                              2


      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.10.2016
passed in S.C.No.5040/2014 by the learned IV-Additional
District And Sessions Judge, Madhugiri by allowing this
appeal and to acquit the appellant for the offence under
section 323, 498A, 307 of IPC and acquit the appellant for
the offence under Sections 323, 498A, 307 of IPC.

      This criminal appeal coming on for dictating
judgment, this day, K. Somashekar J, delivered the
following:

                       JUDGMENT

In this appeal, challenging the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 04.10.2016 rendered by the IV

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri in SC

No.5040/2014 and whereby convicting the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 307 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Whereas, in this appeal, seeking consideration

of the grounds narrated in the appeal memorandum and

praying for setting aside the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence rendered by the trial court in the

aforementioned case for the aforesaid offences and

convicted the accused for the said offences.

3. Heard the learned counsel Sri. V.

Kodandaramegowda for the appellant/accused, also the

Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and

perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the trial court in SC No.5040/2014.

4. The factual matrix of the case are as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on

16.11.2013, Smt. Devarajamma who is the complainant

and who is none other than the wife of the accused T.V.

Manjunatha, whereby she has approached Badavanahalli

Police Station in Tumakuru District and based upon her

complaint, the case in Crime No.83/2013 was registered

against the appellant/ accused and four others for the

offences punishable under Sections 114, 323, 307, 498A

read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. She has

stated in her complaint against the accused that on

14.11.2013 at around 9.30 p.m., when she was present in

the house with her husband T.V. Manjunatha who is

arraigned as an accused, he asked her to bring a sum of

Rs.10,000/- from her parents' house so that he would get

her a job in Literacy Department. When the complainant

refused to bring money, the accused at the instigation of

his mother and sisters suddenly abused the complainant

in a filthy language and also assaulted on her mouth, face,

causing pain and pulled her hair. When she fell down, he

kicked her, while crying she got up by then, the accused

poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze to

eliminate her. When she was crying due to burns, the

appellant/accused doused fire and took her to the

Badavanahalli Government Hospital and then to the

District Hospital at Tumkur, where she got admitted as an

in-patient for the burn injuries sustained on her hands,

neck, right cheek and stomach. In pursuance of the act of

the accused and also on the filing of a complaint, criminal

law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime

No.83/2013 by recording an FIR.

5. Subsequently, the case was taken up for

investigation by the Investigating Officer and whereby PW6

- Parthasarathy who registered the case by recording an

FIR as per Ex.P8. PW9 being an Investigating Officer who

has done entire investigation and laid the charge sheet

against the accused persons before the committal court.

Subsequently, the case has been committed by the

committal court by passing an order as contemplated

under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Subsequently, the case in SC No.5040/2014 has been filed

and then the accused has been secured for facing up of

trial. The Trial court has heard the learned Public

Prosecutor and also the defence counsel relating to framing

of charges and prima facie found the charges framed

against the accused for the offences which are reflected in

the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer. The

accused did not plead guilty, who claims to be tried.

Accordingly, plea of the accused had been recorded

separately.

6. Subsequent to framing of charges against the

accused, the prosecution in all entering into examination

of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet and accordingly,

PWs.1 to 9 having been examined and also got marked

several documents at Exs.P1 to 11 and got marked M.Os.1

and 2.

7. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the

prosecution and whereby the accused was subjected to

examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

for recording the incriminating statement/evidence against

them. The accused have denied the truth of the evidence of

the prosecution adduced so far. Accordingly, it was

recorded. Subsequently, the accused was called upon to

enter into the defence evidence as contemplated under

Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

accused did not come forward to adduce any defence

evidence. Accordingly, it was recorded. Subsequent to

closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution as

required under the relevant provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and so also other provisions of law and

whereby the trial court having been heard the arguments

advanced by the Public Prosecutor and so also the defence

counsel. In the evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma who is the

complainant and so also being the wife of the accused T.V.

Manjunatha and so also evidence of PW2 - Narasimhaiah -

father of PW1- Devarajamma and PW7 - Jayamma -

mother of Devarajamma. Their evidence has been

appreciated by the Trial Court inclusive of the evidence of

PW9 - Investigating Officer who conducted the Mahazar as

per Ex.P4 and also secured the photos as per Ex.P5 and

wound certificate of PW1 as per Ex.P6 and that the

prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused by

facilitating the evidence and also convincing the evidence

of those witnesses and rendering the conviction judgment

relating to the appellant/accused T.V. Manjunatha for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 307 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court has sentenced

him to undergo S.I. for a period of two years and to pay a

fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section

498-A, in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I.

for a period of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

Further sentenced to under S.I. for a period of 6 months

and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable

under Section 323, in default of payment of fine, to

undergo further S.I. for three months. Further, he was

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine

of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo

further S.I. for a period of 2 years, for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

All the sentences shall run concurrently. It is this

judgment which is challenged under this appeal by urging

the various grounds.

8. Learned counsel Sri. V. Kodandarame Gowda

for the appellant/accused T.V. Manjunatha who has taken

us to the evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma who is none

other than the wife of the accused that her marriage was

performed on 21.05.2009 as per their customs in the

Society. At the time of her marriage, the accused did not

demand any sort of dowry. Before their marriage, all the

sisters of accused got married and they were residing in

their respective houses. The accused is a KSRTC driver by

avocation, his mother gets pensionary benefit of her

deceased husband Late Venkataiah. There were financial

contsainment even as per the evidence of PW1 -

Devarajamma and so also the evidence of PW2

Narasimhaiah who is her father, but they created the

theory in order to launching a criminal prosecution against

the accused that he demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to

bring from her parents' house in order to get a job in a

Literacy Department. When she refused to bring the said

amount, on an instigation made by the mother and sisters

of the accused, who are arraigned as accused No.2 and

Accused Nos.3 to 5 respectively, the accused abused his

wife Devarajamma in a filthy language and assaulted her,

kicked her and poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze

as a result of which she sustained burn injuries. But this

theory has been set up for filing of a complaint against the

appellant/accused who is her husband and also lugged his

family members i.e., his mother and also sisters. The Trial

Court did not properly appreciate the evidence of PWs.1, 2

and 7. PW1 - Devarajamma is the author of the complaint

- Ex.P1. PW2-Narasimhaiah is the father of the

complainant and PW7-Jayamma is the mother of the

complainant and also has not appreciated the wound

certificate - Ex.P6. There is a contradiction as well as

inconsistency in the evidence of PWs.2 and 7 - who are the

parents of the complainant. But despite of it, the Trial

Court had erroneously come to the conclusion in

convicting the appellant/accused T.V. Manjunatha by

overlooking the material fact as well as the circumstances

relating to the case that had been leveled charges against

him and so also the evidence has been facilitated by the

prosecution. If the evidence on the part of the prosecution

has not been properly appreciated in this appeal, in terms

of re-appreciation as well as re-visiting the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence in respect of

the aforesaid offences, certainly resulted in absolute

miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the counsel seeking for

intervention of judgment passed by the trial court. The

second wing of the argument is that the appellant who is

an accused namely T.V. Manjunatha and PW1 -

Devarajamma and there are some differences arose in that

regard, the accused who is her husband had registered the

matrimonial case relating to the family disputes emerged

in between them, such as MC No.57/2010 before the court

seeking divorce. But There was a conciliation and PW1 -

Devarajamma was sent back to her husband's house to

lead the marital life. Therefore, the act of the incident as

alleged to have been taken place on his own wife by

assaulting all over her body and causing some accidental

burn injuries. The said incident has taken into the act

which is committed by the accused and registering

criminal case against him to riggle out the criminal

proceedings. Thus filing of matrimonial case in fact it goes

against accused No.1 and not in his favour.

9. This contention is also made by the learned

counsel for the appellant/accused by referring the

evidence of PW1- Devarajamma who is the author of the

complaint - Ex.P1. PW1 who sustained some burning

injuries all over her body such as hands, neck, right side of

her face and also on the stomach which also indicates

severe in nature which reflected in Wound Certificate -

Ex.P6. If at all the accused who is her husband of the

complainant poured the kerosene and litting fire on her

resulted in sustaining burn injuries, the injuries found

only to the front parts of her body, but not on the back

parts of her body . Thus, the inference drawn that she

sustained the burn injuries accidentally and not by the act

of the accused, which are based on the narration given in

the complaint-Ex.P1.

10. PW1 - Devarajamma who is none other than

the wife of the accused T.V. Manjunatha had given a

statement before the police while she was under treatment

in the hospital. On 15.11.2013, in the night, while she was

under treatment, her parents, sister and brother-in-law

who were presented there, tooted her to implicate the case

against the accused T.V. Manjunatha. In the complaint

lodged by PW1, there is no explanation for delay of one day

in launching the criminal prosecution against the accused.

Thus, the inference is very much required relating to the

evidence of the prosecution and the complaint -Ex.P1 is

nothing but a cooked up complaint and also afterthought

of the complainant at the instigation of her parents, her

sister and also her brother-in-law. The same has not been

properly appreciated by the Trial court resulted in arriving

at an erroneous conclusion and held conviction to the

accused T.V. Manjunatha, who is none other than the

husband of the complainant.

11. The case of the prosecution entirety has been

dwelling in detail, certainly there is a material

contradiction in the evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma and

also her parents PW2 and PW7. The same has not been

considered and also not appreciated by the Trial Court. If

not appreciated in this appeal, resultant in absolute

miscarriage of justice to the accused with graveman of the

accusation made against him. PWs.4 and 5 being the

witnesses have been subjected to examination, but, they

did not support the case of the prosecution. PWs.3, 6, 8

and 9 are the official witnesses. None of they have given

evidence as per the records and also as per the material

which collected by the Investigating Officer during the

course of investigation and also involved official witnesses

and also their evidence strongly proving the case relating

to the conclusion of the conviction upon the accused T.V.

Manjunatha. Therefore, the impugned judgment of

conviction, the conviction is not supported by any cogent

insist or consist their positive evidence to probablise that

the accused has not committed the incident such as giving

some sort of physical as well as mental harassment to PW1

- Devarajamma insisting her to bring a sum of Rs.10,000/-

from her parents' house in order to get her a job in the

Literacy Department and so also causing injuries all over

her body as indicated in the wound certificate - Ex.P6 and

so also, the accused T.V. Manjunatha had made an

attempt to take away the life of PW1 - Devarajamma who is

none other than his wife. Therefore, in this appeal, it

requires for intervention and also needs for re-appreciation

of the evidence and also re-visiting the impugned judgment

of conviction and order of sentence relating to the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 498-A and 307 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

12. On these premises, the learned counsel for the

appellant seeking for consideration of the grounds that are

urged in this appeal and to set aside the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence relating to the offences

which leveled against him and to acquit the accused for

the offences which are charged against him.

13. In support of his contention, the counsel has

placed reliance on 2021(3) ACCR 2754 in the case of State

of Karnataka vs. Nagaraju and others, whereby in this

reliance, the concept of Section 498A, 302 and Section 34

of IPC has been addressed and whereby acquittal of the

offences.

14. In this judgment, reluctantly registered FIR and

led to filing of proceedings before the court . On this point,

this judgment has been placed by the learned counsel for

the appellant for the purpose of consideration at reliance of

clearly applicable to the present case on hand, whereby

PW1 - Devarajamma had sustained burn injuries as per

Ex.P6 - would certificate. There is some sort of instigation

for launching criminal proceedings by filing a complaint

against her husband T.V. Manjunatha who is arraigned as

accused No.1.

15. In this judgment, at paragraph 13, made an

observation that there is a lot of differences between may

be true and must be true. If from the evidence of

prosecution, two views are possible. Then, view favour to

the accused will have to be accepted. This point of law and

also at the right of the reliance which has observed in this

judgment is also recited by the learned counsel for the

appellant for the appellant for consideration and also for

intervening the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence rendered against the appellant/accused namely

T.V. Manjunatha.

16. The case in SC No.5040/2014 whereby ended

in conviction against the accused T.V. Manjunatha who is

no other than the husband of PW1- Devarajamma. The

criminal prosecution has been set into motion by recording

an FIR against Puttamma who is the mother of Accused

No.1 - T.V. Manjunatha, Sowbhagya, Rangalakshmamma

@ Mani and Annapoorna - sisters of accused No.1 - T.V.

Manjunatha, who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5

respectively, in the case initiated against them by PW1 -

Devarajamma. The criminal proceedings has been initiated

against them, which was ended in acquittal of accused

Nos.2 to 5 of the offences punishable under Sections 498-

A, 307 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, but conviction

held against accused No.1 - T.V. Manjunatha, for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 and 323 of

IPC, 1860, relating to the physical and mental harassment

that has been extended by him to his wife Smt.

Devarajamma at the instigation made by his mother and

sisters. When there is a benefit of doubt, that would

emerged in the case of prosecution, the same shall be

extended to the accused also. But, strangely, the Trial

Court has rendered the judgment of acquittal in favour of

accused Nos.2 to 5 and held conviction to accused No.1 -

T.V. Manjunatha who is the appellant before this Court

and also who is the graveman of the accusations made

against him and on these premises, the learned counsel

seeking for consideration of grounds urged in this appeal

and praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence rendered against him and consequently,

to acquit the accused for the offences which leveled against

him.

17. On controverted arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellant/accused and whereby

the Addl. SPP for the State taking us to the complaint

averments as per Ex.P1 lodged by PW1 - Devarajamma

who is none other than the wife of the accused T.V.

Manjunatha, she has narrated in her complaint that how

she meted physical as well as mental harassment by her

husband also the other accused persons i.e., accused

Nos.2 to 5, her mother-in-law and sister-in-laws. At their

instigation, on the fateful day of 14.11.2013, at about 9.30

P.M., the accused - T.V. Manjunatha picked up quarrel to

bring a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her parents' house so

that he would get her a job in literacy department. When

the complainant refused to bring money, the accused at

the instigation of his mother and sisters suddenly abused

the complainant in a filthy language and also assaulted on

her mouth, face, causing pain and pulled her hair. When

she fell down, he kicked her, while crying she got up by

then, the accused poured kerosene on her body and set

her ablaze to eliminate her, that itself shows that the

accused was having intention to kill her as a result of

which the complainant sustained burn injuries to her

hands, right cheek, neck and stomach, as indicated in

Ex.P6 - wound certificate.

18. PWs.2 and 7 being the partents of PW1 -

Devarajamma and they have also stated in their evidence

and their evidence support to the case of prosecution and

there is some inconsistent in the evidence of PW1 -

Devarajamma relating to the complaint - Ex.P1 and equally

consistent evidence had been given by PWs.2 and 7. PW8

being a Scientific Officer who subjected to examination of

burnt pieces of nighty of the complainant Devarajamma

and the kerosene can which are marked as M.O.1 and

M.O.2 and PW8 has given a report as per Ex.P9. The

serenity is stating that M.O.1 indicates the presence of

kerosene i.e., smell of kerosene. PW8 supported the case of

prosecution and wherein the accused cannot deny the

presence of the kerosene on her cloth as contending that

the incident has been taken place accidentally stating that

while she was trying to lit the wood by pouring kerosene on

it. PW8 even though stood for cross-examination, M.O.1

and M.O.2 have got marked on the part of the prosecution.

19. PW6 who received the oral complaint and

recorded the FIR and then case has been handed over to

PW9 - G.R. Shivamurthy, who is the Investigating Officer

and whereby he conducted the Mahazar as per Ex.P4 and

also secured Wound certificate as per Ex.P6 and also the

FSL report at Ex.P9 and laid the charge sheet against the

accused.

20. PW6 - PSI, who received the oral complaint of

PW1 - Devarajamma and set the criminal law into motion

by registering FIR. Therefore the version of PW1 and also

the version of PW6 - Parthasarathy being an Investigating

Officer recorded the FIR as per Ex.P8 has been consistent

of their evidence and further consistent with the evidence

of PWs2 and 7 who are the parents of PW1 - Devarajamma.

21. As already been stated that PW9 who is an

Investigating Officer and has completed the entire

investigation by conducting the spot Mahazar as per Ex.P4

and seized M.O.1 and 2, in the presence of the panch

witnesses and also for having seized the marriage

invitation and photographs of their marriage. These are

also the evidence facilitated by the prosecution, proven the

guilt of the accused. The same has been appreciated by the

trial court in rendering the conviction judgment against

the accused T.V. Manjunatha. Therefore, there is no

perversity and illegality and there is no infirmity found in

the judgment of conviction and hence calls for interference

and there is no warranting circumstances to interfere with

the judgment passed by the trial court. Therefore, seeking

dismissal of the appeal, being devoid of merits and confirm

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered

by the trial court.

22. It is in this context of the contentions made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and so also the

strongly addressed the arguments advanced by the learned

Addl. SPP, based upon the evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma

who is a graveman of the incident and also the

complainant as well as the author of the complaint -

Ex.P1, more so, she is none other than the wife of the

accused T.V. Manjunatha. Subsequent to her marriage,

there was some differences in between the accused and his

wife PW1 - Devarajamma. The same was led to some

physical as well as mental harassment as a result of that

the accused picked up quarrel with her on the fateful day

of 14.11.2013, at about 9.30 P.M., the accused - T.V.

Manjunatha picked up quarrel to bring a sum of

Rs.10,000/- from her parents' house so that he would get

her a job in literacy department. When the complainant

refused to bring money, the accused at the instigation of

his mother and sisters suddenly abused the complainant

in a filthy language and also assaulted on her mouth, face,

causing pain and pulled her hair. When she fell down, he

kicked her, while crying she got up by then, the accused

poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze to

eliminate her, that itself shows that the accused was

having intention to kill her as a result of which the

complainant sustained burn injuries to her hands, right

cheek, neck and stomach, as indicated in Ex.P6 - wound

certificate.

23. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are the mother and sisters

of the accused - T.V. Manjunatha. At their instigation, the

accused T.V. Manjunatha who is none other than the

husband of the complainant - Devarajamma, abused her

and assaulted her in a filthy language and attempted to

kill her by pouring kerosene and litting fire, as a result of

that she sustained burn injuries on her hands, face, neck

and stomach. At the time of incident, accused No.2 was

present in the house. Accused Nos.3 to 5 came out of the

house and going away. They did not come inside the

house.

24. PW1 does not even incriminating against

accused Nos.3 to 5. In fact, regarding the role of accused

No.2, Smt. Devarajamma while recording her evidence, has

stated that Accused No.2 - her mother-in-law was present

at the place of the incident. Whereas T.V. Manjunatha by

avocation he is a driver in KSRTC bus and that PW1 -

Devarajamma being his wife, she was doing some

household work in the house. As narrated in her

complaint, the incident has taken place at around 9.30

P.M., in the night. The accused No.1 T.V. Manjunatha was

of the habit of taking his bath in the night after returning

back from his duty as a driver in the KSRTC bus. PW1 -

Devarajamma questioned about the heating of water. Even

the name of T.V. Manjunatha is also not mentioned in the

wound certificate as accused persons. Accused persons

denying the said suggestion that PW1-Devarajamma

sustained some burn injuries in the house. The inference

that got drawn is that Accused No.1 - T.V. Manjunatha lit

the fire on her by pouring kerosene. PW7 - mother of the

complainant Smt. Devarajamma has given her evidence on

the part of the prosecution and also they have been

subjected to examination even though she has par with the

evidence of PW1 and even though she has been subjected

to insisting examination and also on the par of PW1 and

PW2. PWs1 and 2 having been subjected to cross-

examination at length, they have admitted that accused

Nos.1 and 2 were residing together even at the time of the

incident. Even PW-1 - Devarajamma was also residing

together with Accused No.1 - T.V. Manjunatha. However,

PW4 who is subjected to examination has to be treated as

hostile to the prosecution relating to the seizure in his

presence by conducting Mahazar as per Ex.P4 for having

seized M.O.1 and M.O.2. PW8 being a Scientific Officer

who is subjected to examination on the part of the

prosecution and also subjected to chemical examination of

M.Os.1 and 2 i.e., burn pieces of nighty of the complainant

Devarajamma and also the kerosene can. Accordingly, on

the chemical examination, the M.O.1 indicates the

presence of kerosene as per the report FSL Report - Ex.P9.

Whereby, the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that PW1 - Devarajamma accidentally caught fire

while she was trying to lighting the wood piece by pouring

kerosene on it. PW6 has not been subjected to cross-

examination relating to the evidence in respect of Ex.P9.

25. PW1 - Devarajamma was an in-patient for

having sustained burn injuries on her body i.e., on her

hands, neck, face, stomach as indicated in the Wound

Certificate - Ex.P6. But, Section 320 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 in respect of grievous hurt even designated as

a grievous injuries eighthly, any hurt which endangers life

or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of

twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his

ordinary pursuits. Then it is to be termed as grievous hurt.

But in the instant case, PW1 - Devarajamma was in-

patient for having sustained injuries and got admitted in

hospital for treatment for a period of 20 days relating to

completion of the ingredients of Section 320 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 relating to grievous hurt. Whereas the

offences under Section 307 of IPC, relating to the

knowledge, that the intention of knowledge of the accused

must be as such as is necessary to constitute a murder. It

is addressed extensively in AIR 1988 SC 2127. The

question and also the scope and applicability of this

provision that the question of intention to kill or the

knowledge of death in terms of section 307, is a question of

fact and not one of law. It would all depends on the facts of

the given case. But, in the instant case, accused Nos.2 to 5

are the mother and sisters of Accused No.1 - T.V.

Manjunatha. But, their case was ended in acquittal even

for the offences under Section 498A of IPC so also for the

offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC, 1860. But

the accused No.1 made an attempt to take away the life of

his wife Smt. Devarajamma. But the important thing to be

borne in mind in determining the question whether an

offence under Section 307, is made out is the intention

and not the injury (even if simple or minor), the same is

addressed in the judgment of Vasant Virthu Jadhav vs.

State of Maharashtra reported in (1997) 2 Crimes 539

(Bombay).

26. In so far as offences under Section 323 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to voluntarily causing

hurt, the essential ingredients of an offence. If hurt

actually caused is simple, a person cannot be held guilty of

voluntarily causing grievous hurt even if it was in his

contemplation. But ingredients of Section 323 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and so also the ingredients of Section

307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the instant case and

even the prosecution has led-in the examination of PW1 -

Devarajamma, who is an injured as per Wound Certificate

as per Ex.P6. PWs.2 and 7 are the parents of PW1 -

Devarajamma. But their evidence were found some

contradiction and also not consistent with each other

relating to ingredients of the aforesaid offences. The same

can be seen from their evidence itself.

27. PW6 being an Investigating Officer who

recorded the FIR as per Ex.P8 and PW9 being an

Investigating Officer thoroughly investigated the case and

laid the charge sheet against the accused by conducting

spot Mahazar as per Ex.P4. But PWs.6, 8 and 9 are the

official witnesses. Their evidence which contrary to the

evidence of PW1 - Devarajamma - author of the complaint -

Ex.P1 and further contradictory to the evidence of PWs.2

and 7 - who are the parents of PW1 - Devarajamma - who

is an injured by infliction of burn injuries on her body as

indicated in the wound certificate - Ex.P6.

28. As already been stated, the case against

accused Nos.2 to 5 ended in the acquittal of the offences

which leveled against them on the basis of a doubtful

theory. But, when there was a doubt crept in the mind of

the court, then, the clouds of doubt in case arise, the same

shall be extended each one of the accused. Mere because

accused V.T. Manjunath is the husband of the

complainant, benefit of this has not been extended to him

and held conviction against him for the offences which

leveled against the accused by narrating the complaint -

Ex.P1.

29. In so far as the offences under Section 498A of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to subjecting her to

cruelty. In so far as Section 498-A vis-à-vis, Section 113 of

the Indian Evidence Act. But Section 498-A of IPC, 1860 or

even Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act 1872 does not

introduce invidious classification qua the treatment of a

married woman by her husband or relatives of her

husband vis-à-vis the other offenders. The classification

should be reasonable and also has clause nexus with the

object sought to be achieved i.e., eradication of the evil of

dowry in the Indian social set-up and to ensure that

married woman live with dignity at their matrimonial

homes. But, in the instant case, the accused T.V.

Manjunatha was insisting PW1 - Devarajamma to bring a

sum of Rs.10,000/- from her matrimonial house to provide

her a job in the Literacy Department. But there is no

material to prove the guilt against the accused and even

there is no material relating to complete ingredients of

Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 180 for securing the

conviction. But the Court must scrutinize the evidence

carefully and also to acceptability of the evidence, it is the

duty of the court by rendering the conviction judgment

against the accused. PW6, PW8 and PW9 are the official

witnesses in the instant case and their evidence also to be

scrutinized carefully. But the testimony of police personnel

should be treated in the same manner the testimony of the

other witnesses and even though there is no principle of

law that without corroboration by independent witnesses

and their testimony cannot be relied upon. The

presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much

in favour of a police officer as of other persons. This issue

was also dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Karamjith Singh Vs. State of Delhi Administration

reported in AIR 2003 SC 1311.

30. PW2 Narasimhaiah and PW7 Jayamma who are

the parents of PW1 Devarajamma also given their evidence

on the part of the prosecution in support of their daughter

as she sustained burn injuries. Their evidence should be

scrutinized carefully otherwise affects the credibility of the

witnesses. Even the witnesses being the very close relatives

of the injured and their evidence should be scrutinized

carefully.

31. But in the instant case, the accused was insisting

PW-1 / Devarajamma to bring a sum of Rs.10,000/- from

her matrimonial house to provide her a job in Literacy

Department. But there is no material to that aspect for

proving the guilt against the accused and even there is no

material relating to the ingredients of Section 498A of the

IPC for securing conviction. The Court must scrutinize the

evidence carefully and if there is acceptable evidence, it is

the duty of the Court to render a conviction judgment

against the accused. PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 are the official

witnesses in the instant case and their evidence also

requires to be scrutinized carefully. But the testimony of

the police personnel should be treated in the same manner

as the testimony of any other witnesses and there is no

principle of law that without corroboration by independent

witnesses, their testimony cannot be relied upon. But the

presumption that a person acts honestly, applies as much

in favour of police personnel as much as other persons and

this issue was also dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of KARAMJIT SINGH vs. STATE

(AIR 2003 SC 1311).

32. PW-2 / Narasimhaiah and PW-7 / Jayamma are

the parents of PW-1 / Devarajamma. They have also given

evidence on the part of the prosecution supporting the

evidence of their daughter Devarajamma that she had

sustained burn injuries over her person. It has to be held

that they have deposed so in view of interestedness over

their daughter. They are to be termed as interested

witnesses. Hence their evidence has to be scrutinized very

carefully. Otherwise, it would affect the credibility of the

witnesses. Even the witnesses being very close relatives of

the injured, their evidence should be scrutinized and also

there should be natural witnesses to be believed. But in

the instant case, the entire case of the prosecution revolves

around the evidence of PW-1 Devarajamma and so also the

evidence of PW-2 / Narasimhaiah and PW-7 / Jayamma.

Their evidence must be closely scrutinized. If their

evidence is not scrutinized carefully, certainly the

gravamen of the accusation would be the sufferer and

there shall be an absolute miscarriage of justice. No doubt

the prosecution has facilitated the evidence by subjecting

to examination PW-1 to PW-9. But the prosecution should

facilitate quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence

which is required to be judged by the Court and give more

credentiality to the statement even though the law of

evidence does not require any particular number of

witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact.

33. However, faced with the testimony of a single

witness, the court may classify the oral testimony of a

single witness, into three categories, namely,

i) wholly reliable,

ii) wholly unreliable and

iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

34. In the first two categories, there may be no

difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the

single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of

cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for

corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony,

direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a

single witness. The same has been extensively addressed

in the case of LALLU MANJHI V. STATE OF JHARKHAND

(AIR 2003 SC 854).

35. In the instant case, PW-1 / Devarajamma is none

other than the wife of the accused T.V. Manjunatha who is

the appellant before us but the case as against the co-

accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 ended in acquittal. But the case

against this appellant / accused namely T.V. Manjunatha

has ended in conviction for offences under Sections 323,

498A and 307 of the IPC, 1860. The same has been

challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds. But

in the instant case, insofar as conviction held against this

accused Manjunatha is concerned, it is relevant to refer to

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND SARDA VS STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA (1984) 4 SCC 116.

36. In paragraph 163 of the said judgment, it is held

that it is well-settled that where on the evidence two

possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour

of the prosecution and the other which benefits an

accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit

of doubt. In KALI RAM V. STATE OF HIMACHAL

PRADESH (AIR 1973 SC 2773), this Court made the

following observations:

"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."

37. In the instant case, the entire case revolves

around PW-1 / Devarajamma who is the author of the

complaint and so also PW-4 and PW-7 who are the parents

of PW-1 / Devarajamma. But it will be seen in the

evidence available on record and taking into account their

evidence, there must be complete chain insofar as linking

to the circumstances for having sustained burning

injuries. The essential conditions must be satisfied by

facilitating evidence such as,

i) various links in the chain of evidence led by the

prosecution have been satisfactorily proved;

ii) The said circumstance points to the guilt of the

accused with reasonable definiteness and;

iii) The circumstances are in proximity to the time

and situation.

If these conditions are fulfilled, then in the instant

case, it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove

the guilt of the accused by facilitating and considering

positive evidence to secure conviction. If doubt arises in

the mind of the Court, the benefit of doubt is always to be

extended in favour of the accused alone as per the criminal

justice delivery system.

38. In the instant case, the case as against the co-

accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 has ended in acquittal even

though they were facing trial for offences equally with

Accused No.1 / appellant namely T.V. Manjunatha. When

on the benefit of doubt the case has been ended in

acquittal, that benefit of doubt should be extended to this

accused T.V. Manjunatha also. If not, certainly the

gravamen of the accused would be the sufferer and it

would result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in view

of the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the opinion

that in this appeal it requires interference whereby the

accused are deserving for acquittal since the prosecution

did not facilitate worthwhile evidence in terms of cogent,

corroborative and positive evidence to probabilise that the

accused T.V. Manjunatha, that is her husband had caused

burn injuries over her person as indicated in the Wound

Certificate issued by the Doctor and also pouring kerosene

over her person and set her ablaze and also extending

some sort of physical as well as mental harassment.

39. The appellant / accused T.V. Manjunatha being

none other than the husband of PW-1 / Devarajamma was

apprehended by the Investigating Agency in the criminal

prosecution initiated based upon the complaint and since

from the date of conviction, that is from October 2016,

accused is in incarceration for a period of 5 years 9

months and 10 days. This contention is made by the

learned counsel for the appellant seeking intervention in

this impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence. Even though this contention has been taken

into consideration, but the case of the prosecution appears

to be with clouds of doubt. Consequently, the appellant /

Accused No.1 T.V. Manjunatha deserves for acquittal from

the offences levelled against him.

40. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the

opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal preferred by the appellant / accused No.1

T.V. Manjunatha under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby

allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence rendered by the Court of the IV Addl.

District & Sessions Judge, Madhugiri in

S.C.No.5040/2014 dated 04.10.2016 is hereby set-aside.

Consequent, the appellant / accused No.1 is

acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,

307 and 323 of the IPC which were charged against him.

The appellant / T.V. Manjunatha is in incarceration

in Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru.

Therefore, the Superintendent of Jail Authority is directed

to set him at liberty, forthwith, if he is not required in any

other cases.

The Registry of this Court is directed to forward a

copy of the operative portion of the order to the

Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Parappana

Agrahara, Bengaluru, for compliance, accordingly ordered.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SNC/KS