The State Through vs Sanganna @ Sangappa S/O Gireppa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3638 Kant

                              1



                                                             R
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                          PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR

                            AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE


           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200035/2014
Between:

The State through
Aland Police Station
Represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor
Gulbarga.
                                               ... Appellant
(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)

And:

1.     Sanganna @ Sangappa
       S/o Gireppa Chitali
       Age: 48 Years, Occ: Hotel Work
       R/o Near Kanchana Talkies
       Aland
2.     Laxmibai W/o Sanganna @ Sangappa Chitali
       Occ: Household, R/o Near Kanchana Talkies Aland
       Dist. Gulbarga
                                           ... Respondents

(By Sri Baburao Mangane & Sri Ashok B. Mulage, Advocates)
                              2




       This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) &
(b) of Cr.P.C., praying to grant leave to appeal against the
judgment dated 01.10.2013 passed by I Addl. Sessions
Judge at Gulbarga in Sessions Case No.388/2012 thereby
acquitting the respondents/accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A & 302 r/w Section 34 of
IPC; set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 01.10.2013
passed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge at Gulbarga in
Sessions Case No.388/2012 for the offence punishable
under Sections 498-A, 302 R/w Section 34 of IPC; and
convict the respondents/accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
     This appeal coming on for hearing           this   day,
K. Somashekar J., delivered the following:

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment of

acquittal dated 01.10.2013 rendered by the I Addl.

Sessions Judge, Gulbaga ( for short, 'the trial Court') for

the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 r/w

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The

appellant/State seeking intervention of this Court on

various grounds urged in the appeal memo and thereby

seeks to set aside of the impugned judgment of acquittal

and prays to allow the appeal thereby convict the

respondents/accused of the aforesaid offences.

2. Heard Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional

State Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and so

also Sri Baburao Mangane, learned counsel for the

respondents/accused and perused the entire material

on record.

3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case

briefly stated are as under;

It transpires from the prosecution case that, on

31.05.2012 at about 9.00 a.m., the Police Sub-Inspector

of Aland P.S. received a MLC report from Government

Hospital, Aland to the effect that one Smt. Umadevi has

been admitted to the said hospital for treatment as she

has sustained burn injuries. It is stated that on the

said date at about 10.15 a.m., the Police Sub-Inspector

of Aland P.S. visited the Government Hospital, Aland

and got confirmed that one Smt. Umadevi W/o Santosh

Chitali, resident of Aland has been admitted to the

hospital for treatment due to burn injuries sustained by

her. Thereafter, the Police Sub-Inspector, Aland P.S.

submitted a requisition to the doctor who treated the

injured and sought his opinion as to whether the

injured was in a fit position to give her statement or not.

Accordingly, the said doctor gave an endorsement

stating that the injured was in a position to give her

statement. Later, in the presence of the doctor, Police-

Sub Inspector recorded the statements of the injured

Smt. Umadevi. Based upon her statement, a case in

Crime No.110/2012 came to be registered by recording

the first information report for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A and 307 r/w Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860. During the course of the treatment,

the injured Smt. Umadevi breathed her last.

Consequently, the investigating agency had submitted a

requisition for incorporation of Section 302 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 in the aforesaid crime and accordingly

offence under Section 302 of IPC incorporated

substituting the offence punishable under Section 307

of IPC. Thereafter, the investigating officer took up the

case for investigation and proceeded to the scene of

offence held inquest over the dead body of the deceased

Smt. Umadevi and the dead body was sent to the

mortuary where the doctor conducted an autopsy over

the dead body; subsequently, the investigating officer

secured the post-mortem report; drew the spot mahazar

in the presence of witnesses; conducted the inquest over

the dead body of the deceased Smt. Umadevi; recorded

the statement of inquest witnesses; and after

completion of the investigation, the Investigating officer

laid the charge sheet against accused persons for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

After receipt of the charge-sheet, the committal

Court passed an order as contemplated under Section

209 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and complied

with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. by supplying the charge

sheet and other materials and the case has been

committed to Sessions Court which culminated into the

registration of S.C.No.388/2012.

4. After committal of the case, the trial Court

has heard the arguments of both the learned Public

Prosecutor and also the defence counsel relating to

framing of charges and since there were grounds to

proceed against the accused, the trial Court framed the

charges against the accused of the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860. The charges were read over and

explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and

claim to be tried. Accordingly, a plea of the each

accused was recorded separately and thereafter the

matter was posted for recording prosecution evidence.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution has

examined in all 12 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 12 and got

marked as many as 15 documents at Exs.P.1 to 15 and

got marked 2 material objects as M.Os.1 and 2.

6. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the

accused has been subjected to examination as

contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the

accused have denied the incriminating circumstances

appearing against them in the prosecution witnesses.

7. After the recording of the 313 Cr.P.C.

statement, the accused were called upon to adduce

defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accordingly,

accused No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1 and got

marked two documents through him as Exs.D1 and 2.

8. After the closure of the evidence from both

sides, and hearing the counsel appearing for the State

and the accused, the trial court considered the evidence

of P.W.1-Mahantesh, P.W.8-Sri Mahadevappa, Taluka

Executive Magistrate, P.W.9-Sri Alesh, Police Sub-

Inspector, who recorded FIR as per Ex.P.11, P.W.10-

Dr. Ambaraya in whose presence dying declaration at

Ex.P.12 was recorded, the P.W.12, who is the

Investigation Officer and also the evidence of P.Ws.1 to

7 examined by the prosecution, who did not support the

version of their statements and whose contradictory

statements have been marked as per Exs.P.2 to 7. The

material document i.e., dying declaration at Ex.P.13

given by the deceased Smt. Umadevi is also considered.

On close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses inclusive of post-mortem report at Ex.P.12,

and even the doctor's opinion about the cause of the

death of the deceased, trial court concluded that the

prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused

by facilitating the worthwhile evidence and consequently

the trial Court rendered the acquittal judgment. It is

this judgment is under challenge by the appellant/State

urging various grounds.

9. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

for the State has taken us through the evidence of

P.W.11- Taluka Executive Magistrate, who recorded the

dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Umadevi as per

Ex.P.13 on 13.12.2012 and the dying declaration has

been confirmed by doctor P.W.10. The evidence of

P.Ws.10 and 11 relating to the dying declaration are got

marked on the part of the prosecution as Ex.P.11.

However, the trial court did not consider the aforesaid

evidence on the part of the prosecution in a proper

perspective is the submission. Therefore, the impugned

judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court

requires re-appreciation in the light of both oral and

documentary evidence, placed before the court. On

these grounds learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor sought for intervention of this Court. It is

further contended that Ex.P.13 is the dying declaration

recorded by the responsible Taluka Executive

Magistrate who has been examined as P.W.11. Though

there are minor infirmities on the part of the

prosecution, the Trial court ought to have given

importance to the evidence of the executive magistrate.

It is urged that P.Ws.9, 10 and 11 have stated in their

evidence reiterating the cause of the death and also

about burn injuries over the person of the deceased

Smt. Umadevi. On a fateful day, the mother-in-law of

the deceased who is arrayed as accused No.2 said to

have poured kerosene over the deceased when she was

in the kitchen and set her fire by scratching the match

stick. Therefore, this appeal, calls for intervention and

seeks to allow the appeal and consequently set aside the

judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in

S.C.No.388/2012 dated 01.10.2013. And consequent

upon setting aside of the acquittal judgment prays to

convict the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

10. On the other hand, Sri Baburao Mangane,

learned counsel for the respondents/accused supports

the impugned judgment of acquittal. Referring to the

evidence of P.Ws.9 to 11 submits that the entire

evidence of the prosecution is revolving around these

material witnesses, but these prosecution witnesses

have not supported the case of the prosecution. The

learned counsel draws the attention of this Court the

evidence of P.W.1 who is a panch witness and he has

stated in his evidence that about one and half years ago

on one day, the police secured him and asked him to act

as panch witnesses relating to conducting of inquest

panchanama over the dead body of the deceased. The

deceased Smt. Umadevi had sustained burn injuries to

the extent of 90% to 95% as per the evidence of the

doctor. He has stated in his evidence about the cause of

death of the deceased is due to hypovolemic shock due

to 90-95% burns sustained on her person. Even the

evidence on the part of the prosecution does not inspire

the confidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The

entire case is revolving around the evidence of P.W.9,

the Police Sub-Inspector who recorded the statement

and recorded the FIR as per Ex.P.11. Even from a

cursory glance of the evidence of P.Ws.9 to 11 inclusive

of the evidence of P.W.12 examined on the part of the

prosecution, it is evident that their evidence is

inconsistent and contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws.2

to 7 who have given a complete go-bye to their version

at Exs.P.2 to 7 and further contradictory to the version

of the statement made by the deceased Smt. Umadevi as

per Ex.P.10. Though accused No.2 alleged to have

poured kerosene over the body of the deceased Smt.

Umadevi and set her ablaze thereby caused burn

injuries over her body, the prosecution has miserably

failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating

credible evidence and no credential can be given to the

said evidence and the same could be seen from the

evidence of the prosecution and the same has been

appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore, the trial court

rendered an acquittal judgment holding that the

prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the

accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence relating

to the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 302 r/w

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. On this

premise, the learned counsel for the

respondents/accused seeks for dismissal of this appeal

being devoid of merits.

11. It is in this context of the contention made

by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the

State by urging the various grounds and also counter-

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

respondents/accused, it is necessary to consider the

evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 who are the parents of the

deceased Umadevi and they have stated in their

evidence that their daughter Umadevi had died due to

burn injuries. But P.W.6 and P.W.7 have not

specifically stated in their evidence how their daughter

Umadevi sustained extensive burn injuries over her

person as indicated in the post mortem report at

Ex.P.12 and also they have not stated about the

allegation made in the complaint at Ex.P.10 and

Ex.P.13, the dying declaration alleged to have been

recorded by P.W.11.

12. It is seen in the evidence of the prosecution

that P.W.6 and P.W.7 have given their statements and

the same has been recorded by the investigating agency.

But they have not withstood the version of their

statements and their statements are contrary to the

contents of the dying declaration at Ex.P.13 and even

the contents at Ex.P.11 FIR recorded by P.W.9 PSI who

is said to have gone to the Government hospital and

recorded deceased's statement. Based upon her

statement, criminal law was set in motion by recording

FIR at Ex.P.11. Accused No.1 is none other than the

father-in-law of the deceased and accused No.2 is none

other than the stepmother-in-law of the deceased.

P.W.3, Santosh is the husband of the deceased Umadevi

and he is examined by the prosecution even though he

is said to have given his statement during the course of

the investigation conducted by the investigating agency,

he did not support the version of his statement that his

wife Smt. Umadevi lost her breath by suffering burn

injuries over her person as indicated in the post mortem

report issued by the doctor who conducted an autopsy

over the person of the deceased.

13. As already stated, the PSI of Aland Police

Station recorded the statement of the injured Smt.

Umadevi and based on her complaint, criminal law was

set in motion by registering FIR and registered the case

in Crime No.110/2012 and initially crime came to be

registered for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,

1860. Subsequently, the PSI of Aland Police Station

sent a requisition to the responsible Tahasildar and

Taluka Magistrate, Aland for recording the dying

declaration of the injured Smt. Umadevi. Accordingly,

the Taluka Executive Magistrate who visited the

Government hospital, Aland and in the presence of the

doctor and also confirmed from the doctor that she was

in a position to give her statement. Accordingly, her

dying declaration has been recorded as per Ex.P.13.

14. The deceased Umadevi is none other than

the wife of P.W.3 Santosh. Accused No.2 is none other

than her stepmother-in-law extending some sort of

physical as well as mental harassment saying that they

have to maintain her and saying her and her husband

to reside separately i.e., to go out from their house. By

saying so, they have been extending physical as well as

mental harassment to the deceased Umadevi. In her

statement of the allegation the deceased Umadevi stated

that on 31.05.2012 at about 00-08 a.m., while she was

preparing food, her stepmother-in-law who is arranged

as accused No.2 came into the kitchen room and picked

up a quarrel with her with an intention to eliminate her

and poured kerosene over her person and set ablaze by

scratching matchstick. Hearing the hue and cry of the

injured Umadevi, the neighbours namely, Smt.

Shantabai and her husband rushed to the scene of the

crime and doused the fire which was found on the

person of the injured Umadevi and thereafter, the

injured was shifted to the Government hospital for

treatment. The injured initially has given her statement

and says that it is her father-in-law who is arranged as

accused No.1 namely, Santanna and her stepmother-in-

law who is arranged as accused No.2 have caused burn

injuries over her person.

15. It is relevant to refer to Section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860. Explanation (a) of the said

section, speaks about any willful conduct which is of

such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit

suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or

health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;

Explanation (b) deals with harassment of the woman

where such harassment is to coerce her or any person

related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any

property or valuable security or is on account of failure

by her or any person related to her to meet such

demand. These two elements find a place in explanation

(a) and (b), concerning the husband or relatives of the

husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. This is

the main ingredient of the offence under Section 498-A

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But in the instant case,

P.W.3 Santosh is none other than the husband of the

deceased Umadevi was residing with his wife and

parents. There is no demand for anything by the

accused. But only stated that she will be a burden for

their family, after her marriage with their son who is

P.W.3. Insofar as willful conduct, the allegation against

the husband was that he abused and beat his wife and

forced her to commit suicide. But in the instant case,

the in-laws are being arranged as accused and there is

no any sort of allegation pressurizing her to bring any

property. On a fateful day, while the deceased Umadevi

was in the kitchen room and preparing food, accused

No.2 who is said to have entered the kitchen room i.e.,

scene of the crime, said to have poured kerosene over

her person and set ablaze by scratching matchstick. But

there is no evidence facilitated by the prosecution to

prove the guilt of the accused that accused Nos.1 and 2

have physically as well as mentally harassed the

deceased. The accused neither abused her nor beat her.

16. It is relevant to refer to Section 3 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, wherein the word "Proved" is

defined -- A fact is said to be proved when, after

considering the matters before it, the Court either

believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable

that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of

the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it

exists. "Disproved" is defined as -- A fact is said to be

disproved when, after considering the matters before it,

the Court either believes that it does not exist, or

considers its existence so probable that prudent man

ought, under the circumstances of the particular case,

to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. In

the instant case, several witnesses have been subjected

to examination and those witnesses did not withstand

the version of their statements. Their evidence has been

contrary to the contents of the dying declaration given

by the injured Umadevi while she was taking treatment

in the Government hospital.

17. It is relevant to note that mens rea i.e., the

criminal intent is required to constitute a crime. It

must be proved that the accused meant or intended to

do wrong or at least knew he was doing wrong.

However, the precise mental element varies from crime

to crime. Most criminal cases involve one of the

following kinds of mens rea:

Intent: This is the explicit and conscious desire to

commit a dangerous or illegal activity.

Knowledge: This term applies if a person is aware

that his or her actions will have certain results, but

does not seem to care. For example, if a person

violently lashes out at someone, inflicting harm may not

be her primary goal. However, if she was aware that

harm would be a predictable result of her actions, then

she is guilty of having criminal knowledge, but the

prosecution ought to establish the ingredients. The

dying declaration is not reliable. The manner of

recording dying declaration is doubtful, and it cannot be

relied upon to sustain the conviction of the accused as

under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. If there

are two dying declarations giving two different versions,

serious doubt is created about the truthfulness of the

dying declarations. The dying declaration does not

reveal the entire truth, and it has to be considered only

as a piece of evidence on which event conviction cannot

be rested solely based on such doubtful dying

declaration. If the dying declaration was recorded in the

presence of the relatives of the deceased, the possibility

that the deceased is tutored cannot be ruled out. The

Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit

state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and

identify the assailant. Once the Court is satisfied that

the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it

can base its conviction without any further

corroboration, but it cannot be laid down as an absolute

rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the

sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The

rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of

prudence. A dying declaration is a very important

document because it amounts to a statement of the

deceased verba dicta. The Court must satisfy that the

deceased was in the state of mind after a clear

opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. But

the dying declaration should be carefully scrutinized.

18. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the

motive factor assumes the important significance.

Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and

sometimes it is difficult to unlock. People do not act

wholly without motive. The failure to discover the

motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence.

In the instant case, the deceased Umadevi who is no

other than the wife of P.W.3 Santosh lost her breath by

sustaining extensive burn injuries as indicated in the

post mortem report issued by the doctor who conducted

autopsy over her body and so also opined that the death

was due to hypovolemic shock due to 90-95% burns.

However, the deceased Umadevi's dying declaration is

not proved.

19. The moot point is whether accused No.2 who

is none other than stepmother-in-law of the deceased

has poured kerosene over her person and set her ablaze

by scratching matchstick with an intention to eliminate

her. But there is no specific evidence on the part of the

prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Rightly,

the trial Court has appreciated the evidence by holding

that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the

guilt of the accused.

20. In the instant case, it is relevant to refer to

the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. the State of

Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, whereas, in

this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

extensively addressed the elements of Section 302 of

Indian Penal Code, and also an issue relating to a

specific provision of Section 32 (1) of Evidence Act, 1872

and so also Section 498-A read with Section 113-A of

Evidence Act, 1872. Under what circumstances, the

benefit of the doubt has to be extended to the accused

under the criminal justice system has been addressed

in detail. Therefore, it is relevant to refer to paragraph

No.163 of this judgment:

"163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. 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 the doubt.

Another golden thread that 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 special relevance

in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."

21. It is relevant to refer Section 134 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Merit of the statement is

important. It is the well-known principle of law that

reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a

witness if the Court concludes that the said statement

is the true and correct version of the case of the

prosecution. It has been extensively addressed in the

judgment of Raja vs State, reported in (1997) 2 Crimes

175 (Del).

Quality of Witness - It is the quality of the

evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is

required to be judged by the Court to place credence on

the statement. It has been extensively addressed in the

judgment of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal, 2008

(8) JT 650.

Plurality of Witnesses - In the matter of

appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the

number of witnesses, but the quality of their evidence

which is important, as there is no requirement in law of

evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to

be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-

honoured principle, that evidence must be weighed and

not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring

of trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or

otherwise. The legal system has emphasized value

provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or

plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity,

which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been

provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. This

has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) through

LRs & Another vs Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs &

Others, reported in AIR 2013 SC 1204.

22. It is necessary to refer to Section 32 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of dying

declaration when more than one dying declaration is

produced. In the case of two conflicting dying

declarations, one recorded by a doctor in the presence

of two more doctors and the second by a person attested

by Sarpanch, the second one not proved by a

competent witness cannot be relied upon. The same

has been addressed in detail in the case of Harbans Lal

v. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 819. (ii) Where there

is more than one dying declaration and they are

inconsistent there, it is not possible to pick out one

such declaration wherein the accused is implicated and

based the conviction on the sole basis of that dying

declaration. In the instant case, the deceased Umadevi

who has given dying declaration and the same has been

recorded by the responsible Taluka Executive

Magistrate and even confirmed through the concerned

doctor, who had provided treatment to her, but the

contents in her dying declaration have not been proved

by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence or

even any independent witnesses on the part of the

prosecution.

23. As already stated that the prosecution even

though has subjected to the examination of several

witnesses, the entire case of the prosecution rests on

the evidence of P.W.10 who has given the treatment to

the injured Umadevi. In his evidence, he has stated

that on 31.05.2012 at about 09-00 a.m., the injured

Umadevi was brought to the hospital with a history of

burn injuries. Accordingly, he had provided first

treatment to her. Even at one stage of his evidence, he

has stated that he sent MLC report to Aland Police

Station, but in the latter part of his evidence, he has

stated that he has not sent MLC to Aland Police Station,

but the police themselves came to the hospital along

with the patient. The trial Court has made it in

observation in Paragraph 20 of the judgment that P.W.9

PSI who has given evidence that after receipt of MLC

report from the Government hospital, Aland, he visited

the hospital but the evidence of P.W.10 reveals that he

had not at all sent MLC report to the Police Station.

Therefore, there is a material contradiction in the

evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 which creates some

clouds of doubt of the theory of the prosecution to prove

the guilt of the accused.

24. P.W.10 is a doctor who provided treatment to

the injured has stated that the deceased had sustained

more than 98% of burn injuries. Even at Ex.P.12 post

mortem report, the doctor who has conducted the post

mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased

Smt. Umadevi has clearly stated that the deceased had

sustained 90-95% burn injuries. Therefore, there is

much force in the arguments advanced by the counsel

for the respondents-accused to the effect that as the

deceased has sustained about 98% of burn injuries over

her person, she was not in a position to give her

statement before PSI or Taluka Executive Magistrate.

Ex.P.13 is the dying declaration of the deceased

Umadevi, it was recorded by P.W.11 Tahasildar cum

Taluka Executive Magistrate, Aland and he has given

evidence on the part of the prosecution. However, his

evidence relating to the dying declaration at Ex.P.13 did

not support the evidence of independent witnesses on

the part of the prosecution. At a cursory glance of the

evidence of P.W.9, P.W.10, and P.W.11, a prudent man

can infer whether the dying declaration at Ex.P.13 was

voluntary, without any coercion. Injured Umadevi was

not in a position to give her dying declaration at Ex.P.13

or even the statement given by her as per Ex.P10. Even

at Ex.P.13, her signature is not there. Even after

scrutiny and reappreciation of the evidence, it is evident

that the prosecution evidence does not inspire the

confidence of the Court. Consequently, the trial Court

has rendered the acquittal judgment for the offences

under Section 498-A, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

25. D.W.1 who is accused No.1 has been

subjected to examination on the defence side. In a

criminal trial in that the evidence has to be facilitated, it

must be consistent, corroborative, cogent and positive

to probable that the accused committed the crime. But

there is no such kind of evidence facilitated by the

prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt. Therefore, in this appeal, we are of

the opinion by assigning the aforesaid reasons and

findings, that there is no perversity or absurdity in the

judgment rendered by the trial Court. Consequently, it

does not call for any interference in the acquittal

judgment rendered by the trial Court. Consequently,

the appeal deserves to be rejected. In view of the

aforesaid reasons and findings, we proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

The appeal preferred by the appellant/State under

Section 378 (1) and (b) of Cr. P.C is hereby rejected.

Consequently, the acquittal judgment rendered by the

trial Court in S.C.No.388/2012 dated 01.10.2013 is

hereby confirmed.

Bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused shall

stand cancelled.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE

BL/RSP