Karnataka High Court

Nirmala Nagappa Doddawad vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2025

                                                            -1-
                                                                    CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH


                                        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025

                                                         PRESENT

                                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

                                                            AND

                                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


                                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100400 OF 2024


                                BETWEEN:

                                NIRMALA NAGAPPA DODDAWAD
                                AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                                R/O. HIREBELLIKATTI VILLAGE,
                                BAILHONGAL TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI.
                                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                                (BY SRI. S.P. KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE)

                                AND:
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Digitally signed by YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
                                THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH DHARWAD
Date: 2025.06.25 14:12:21
+0530
                                THROUGH DODDAWAD POLICE,
                                REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                                HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                                (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)

                                      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C
                                1973., PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER CALLING FOR THE RECORDS
                                FROM THE TRIAL COURT, AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
                                ORDER DATED 17.02.2020 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
                                CHILDREN'S COURT (PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE), BELAGAVI, AT
                                BELAGAVI IN SESSIONS CASE NO.141/2018 CONVICTING THE
                                APPELLANT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCE U/S. 302 OF IPC AND
                                SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE FOR THE
                                SAID OFFENCE.
                                 -2-
                                       CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024



       THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUSTICE RAJESH
RAI K, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
                                  AND
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                         CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

This appeal directed against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 17.02.2020 passed in Sessions

Case No.141/2018 by the Special Judge, Children's Court

(Principal Sessions Judge) at Belagavi (hereinafter referred to

as the 'learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions

Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and

sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:

The complainant-PW.1 Shivappa Ramappa Barki is the

father of deceased child Rajeshwari in the instant case. He was

residing along with his wife and children at Hirebellikatti village

in Bailhongal Taluk. The accused-Nirmala is the daughter-in-law

of PW.1's elder sister. About two months prior to the incident,

PW.1 and his wife rebuked the accused as she had beaten their

CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024

child Rajeshwari (deceased) as the child Rajeshwari had

quarreled with the children of accused. Since then, the accused

harboured animosity towards child-Rajeshwari, treated her

discourteously and also used to threaten her. On 27.11.2017 at

about 4:00 p.m., accused with an intention to burn Rajeshwari

to death, took kerosene and match box and led Rajeshwari to

the nearby cotton field bearing Sy.No.28 owned by PW.14-

Mallanagouda Ganganaika Patil under the guise of attending

nature call. In the said spot, the accused doused her by pouring

kerosene. As a result, Rajeshwari sustained severe burn

injuries. On hearing the deceased crying, PWs.3, 7 to 10 and

15 rushed to spot and shifted the injured to BIMS, Belagavi.

During the course of treatment, on the following day, the child-

Rajeshwari succumbed to the burn injuries in the Hospital.

Thereafter, PW.1 lodged a complaint against accused before the

Doddawad Police Station as per Ex.P1 on 28.11.2017. On the

strength of Ex.P1, PW.20-Police Sub-Inspector of respondent-

Police registered FIR in Crime No.92/2017 against the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as per

Ex.P21.

3. Subsequently, PW.20-PSI apprehended the accused

on 29.11.2017 and produced her before PW.22-Investigation

CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024

Officer. Later, he conducted the investigation in the case,

recorded the statement of material witnesses and drawn the

relevant mahazars and after obtaining necessary documents

from the concerned authorities, laid charge sheet against the

accused before the committal Court for the offences punishable

under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC.

4. Post committal of the case before the Sessions

Court, the learned Sessions Judge after securing the presence

of the accused, framed charges against her for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC and read over

the same to her. However, she denied the charges and claimed

to be tried.

5. In order to prove the charges leveled against the

accused, the prosecution in total examined 22 witnesses as

PW.1 to PW.22 and marked 37 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P37,

so also identified 9 material objects as MO.1 to MO.9.

6. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the

learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating portion of

the evidence of material witnesses to the accused as

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

accused denied the same. Her defence was that she was falsely

CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024

implicated. The accused neither examined any witness on her

behalf nor marked any documents.

7. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence,

the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused for

the charges leveled against her and sentenced her as stated

supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is

challenged in this appeal.

8. We have heard the learned counsel

Sri. S.P. Kandagal for the appellant and the learned Addl. SPP

Sri. A.M. Gundawade for the respondent-State. We have also

perused the records made available before us.

9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant is that the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the Sessions Court suffers from perversity

and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred

while convicting the accused without duly appreciating the

evidence and documents placed before him. He contended that

there are no eyewitnesses to the incident of accused setting the

deceased on fire. The prosecution examined PWs.3, 7 to 10 as

eyewitnesses to the incident, among them PW.8 totally turned

hostile to the prosecution case. PWs.7, 9 and 10 though

CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024

supported the case of prosecution; according to them, the

deceased child informed them that the accused set her on fire

after pouring kerosene. In such circumstance, the evidence of

these witnesses cannot be relied to prove the guilt of accused

as the prosecution has failed to prove the oral declaration made

by the deceased-child to these witnesses by placing cogent

evidence. Further, he also contended that, the material

witnesses i.e., PWs.7, 9 and 10 partially turned hostile to the

prosecution case. Though PW.3 supported the case of

prosecution, he had neither seen the incident nor was informed

by the deceased about the accused at the spot of incident.

Further, the relationship between PW.3 and accused was not

cordial; as such, no credence can be attached to his evidence.

He also contended that the recovery of incriminating articles at

the instance of accused is not proved as provided under Section

27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution also failed to

prove the motive for the commission of incident by the

accused. In such circumstance, he prays to allow the appeal by

setting aside the impugned judgment.

10. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP by supporting the

impugned judgment inter alia contended that the cogent

evidence placed by the prosecution proved the charges leveled

CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024

against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the

learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in right

perspective and convicted the accused and sentenced her

appropriately. He further contended that the evidence of

PWs.3, 7, 9 and 10 clearly establishes that the deceased child

made an oral declaration to them about the manner in which

the accused set her ablaze. In such circumstance, though the

declaration was an oral one, the same evidentiary value has to

be attached as that of written dying declaration. He also

contended that, immediately after the incident, PW.15 visited

the spot and shifted the injured to the Hospital in his car.

During the course of treatment, the injured once again made

statement before PW.3 about the act committed by the

accused. PW.22 visited the scene of offence on 29.11.2017 and

seized M.Os.1 to 9 under Ex.P8. Among these material objects,

M.O.5-plastic bottle, M.O.6- seven match box sticks and M.O.7-

burnt match box sticks clearly establishes that the accused

poured kerosene and set the child ablaze. PW.16-Doctor who

treated the injured initially has stated that "he smelled the

kerosene from the body of the deceased." The learned Addl.

SPP also contended that the evidence of PWs.1 and 3

categorically established the motive for the commission of

CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024

crime by the accused. In such circumstance, the prosecution

proved the charges leveled against accused beyond all

reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and also on perusal of entire evidence on record

including the impugned judgment, the following points arise for

our consideration:

i. "Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality?"

ii. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC?"

12. On careful perusal of the evidence and documents

placed on record, in the instant case, the deceased child died

due to "septicemia as a result of 80% superficial to deep ante-

mortem burn injuries sustained". PW.12-Doctor who conducted

autopsy on the body opined accordingly in the post-mortem

report i.e., Ex.P22. Additionally, the inquest panchanama drawn

by PW.22 also reveals that the deceased child sustained deep

burn injuries and as a result, she succumbed. It is pertinent to

note that, PW.12-Doctor in the post-mortem report clearly

observed that the burn injuries sustained by the deceased are

CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024

ante-mortem. In such circumstance, the prosecution has

proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased child

succumbed due to ante-mortem burn injuries.

13. To connect the accused to the death of deceased

child, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of

PWs.3, 7, 9 and 10 i.e., eyewitnesses to the incident. On

careful scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses, PW.3

clearly deposed in his evidence that he had seen the accused

taking the child towards cotton field belonging to one

Mallangouda Patil and thereafter, on hearing the child cry, he

himself and other eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.7, 9 and 10 rushed to

the spot. They were informed by the child that the accused set

her ablaze. PWs.7, 9 and 10 have deposed that, as soon as

they reached the spot, the accused on seeing them, fled away

from the spot by throwing the bottle and match box that was

held by her. Thereafter, they called PW.15 to the spot and

shifted the child to the Hospital in the Car of PW.15. The

evidence of all these witnesses including PW.15 is consistent.

14. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused

has committed the murder of the child as PWs.1 and 6 i.e., the

parents of the child had reprimanded the accused for assaulting

- 10 -

CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024

the child i.e., the deceased and that she enraged by the same,

was nourishing ill will against the child. To prove this

circumstance, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1

and 6; both these witnesses have consistently deposed to that

effect. Though the defence counsel cross examined these

witnesses at length, nothing worthwhile was elicited from them

to discard their testimony.

15. The other circumstance relied by the prosecution is

recovery of the material objects i.e., M.Os.5 to 7 i.e., plastic

bottle, match box with seven sticks, burnt match sticks

respectively from the spot. These material objects were seized

under Ex.P8-spot panchanama. PWs.2 to 4 identified M.Os.5 to

7 and stated that those articles were seized by the Police from

the spot. It is important to note that, PWs.7, 9 and 10 have

stated in their evidence that they had seen, the accused

running away from the spot by throwing away M.Os.5 and 6.

Further M.Os.5 to 7 were sent to chemical examination and

after examination, the FSL Officer issued a report as per

Ex.P23, which shows that the kerosene residue was detected in

M.O.5. The said report was marked through the Investigation

Officer-PW.22. Hence, on collective reading of evidence of

these witnesses, the prosecution has proved that the accused

- 11 -

CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024

committed the murder of deceased child by pouring kerosene

and setting her ablaze.

16. Learned counsel for the accused vehemently

contended that the oral dying declaration made by the

deceased cannot be a basis for conviction of the accused since

suspicion arises in the evidence of PWs.3, 7, 9 and 10. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxman vs. State of

Maharashtra reported in (2002) 6 SCC 710 held, the juristic

theory regarding the acceptability of dying declaration be that

oral or written.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment

rendered in the case of IRFAN @ NAKA Vs THE STATE OF

UTTAR PRADESH in CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.825-826 OF

2022 dated 23.08.2023, has held at paragraph No.62 as

under;

"62. There is no hard and fast rule for determining when a dying declaration should be accepted; the duty of the Court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the same."

18. Applying the above findings to the instant case,

there is no reason for the parents of the deceased to lodge a

- 12 -

CRL.A No.100400 OF 2024

false complaint against the accused and absolutely, there is no

vengeance against the accused by PWs.7, 9 and 10 to depose

against her by concocting a false story. Hence, we find no good

grounds to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.3, 7, 9 and 10. The

learned Sessions Judge rightly appreciated their evidence and

rightly convicted the accused for the offences charged.

19. On an overall appreciation of the evidence and

circumstances discussed supra, in our considered view, the