[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Puttaraja vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1180 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
PUTTARAJA
S/O JAVAREGOWDA @ RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
BANDIHALLI,
SHANTHGRAMA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT PIN; 573220
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SHANTHIGRAMA POLICE,
HASSAN,
REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1974 AGAINST
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 17/18-08-2012
PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE AND FAST
TRACK I COURT AT HASSAN IN SC NO.27/2011, THEREBY
CONVICTING THE IST APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304B OF IPC AND
SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR 10
YEARS.
-2-
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 28.01.2026, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by
the judgment and order of sentence dated 17th/18th 08
August, 2012 passed in SC No.27 of 2011 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track I Court at Hassan
(for short "the trial Court") convicting the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code
and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 10 years.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the
Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the
charge-sheet materials, is as follows:H. Bandihalli village is
situated within the limits of Shantigrama Police Station. In
the month of April 2004, negotiations were held for the
marriage of Sharada (since deceased), elder sister of PW1,
with the accused Puttaraja. The marriage talks took place in
the presence of PW12, and during the said negotiations PW2
paid a sum of ₹51,000/- in cash and 49 grams of gold
ornaments to the accused towards dowry. Thereafter, the
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
marriage between Sharada and the accused was solemnized
at Madaba village. After the marriage, Sharada resided with
the accused at H. Bandihalli village. For a period of about two
years, the accused treated Sharada properly. Thereafter, the
accused spent the dowry amount and also sold the gold
ornaments belonging to Sharada. Subsequently, the accused
began to subject Sharada to physical and mental cruelty,
assaulting her and insisting that she bring additional dowry
from her parental home. Unable to bear the cruelty and
harassment, Sharada left the matrimonial house along with
her children and went to her parental home. PWs22 and 23
intervened and conducted a Panchayat, wherein the accused
was advised not to ill-treat Sharada and to lead a cordial
marital life. In spite of the same, the accused continued to
consume alcohol frequently, return home in an intoxicated
condition, and assault and harass Sharada.
4. On 13th June, 2010, in the morning hours, a quarrel
took place between Sharada and the accused when Sharada
questioned the accused about not bringing household articles.
During the said quarrel, the accused assaulted Sharada. On
the same day, at about 5.00 p.m., when Sharada was present
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
in the shed of her house at H. Bandihalli village, the accused
came there, abused her in filthy language, assaulted her with
his hands, reiterated the demand for dowry, and threatened
to kill her. Thereafter, the accused took kerosene oil from the
house, poured it on the body of Sharada, and set her on fire.
As a result of the said act, Sharada sustained severe burn
injuries and was shifted to the Government Hospital, Hassan,
for treatment. While undergoing treatment, Sharada
succumbed to the burn injuries on 18th June, 2010 at about
7.10 p.m. It is the further case of the prosecution that the
accused, by subjecting Sharada to cruelty in connection with
dowry demands and by intentionally pouring kerosene and
setting her on fire, caused her death. It is also the case of
the prosecution that even after the death of the deceased, the
accused failed to return the dowry articles to her legal heirs.
On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid
the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act and Sections 323, 504, 498-A, 304-B and 302 of the
Indian Penal Code.
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
5. The charges framed against the accused were read over
and explained to him by the Trial Court on 10th November,
2011. The accused pleaded not guilty and denied all the
allegations, thereby casting the burden upon the prosecution
to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In order to
substantiate its case, the prosecution cited forty-one
witnesses, out of whom twenty-nine witnesses were
examined. The prosecution also relied upon documentary
evidence marked as Exhibits P1 to P45 and material objects
marked as MOs1 to 7. After completion of the prosecution
evidence, the accused was examined by the Trial Court under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 25th April,
2012, wherein all incriminating circumstances appearing
against him were put to him, which he denied. As the accused
stated that he had no defence evidence to adduce, the case
was posted for final arguments. The Trial Court heard the
arguments advanced by Sri Harish Babu, learned counsel for
the accused, and the submissions made by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, and
thereafter proceeded to consider the material on record and
frame the points for determination. By the impugned
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
judgment and sentence, the accused /appellant was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
ten years. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence, the appellant has presented this
appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has
advanced his arguments and reiterated the grounds of appeal
urged in the memorandum of appeal as follows:
The impugned judgment and order of sentence passed
by the Court below is contrary to law, evidence on record and
liable to be set aside to meet the ends of justice. The Court
below has failed to note that the prosecution has failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent
and independent evidence. The learned Judge has committed
an error in convicting the appellant solely on the basis of
evidence of alleged dying declaration without there being
acceptable evidence to prove the guilt even after acquitting
other charges.
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
7. The learned Trial Court has failed to note that the
prosecution having failed to examine all the witnesses and
having regard to the inconsistency in the evidence and of the
prosecution witnesses and alleged dying declaration was
recorded without the doctors note to certify fitness to give
statement. In the absence of cogent and trustworthy material
convicting the appellants on presumption is unsustainable.
8. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to note that all
the material witnesses have turned hostile including the
parents an brothers of victim. The most significant factor is
that the prosecution has not established the ingredients of
section 304B of IPC, that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty by the appellant/husband in connection
with the demand for dowry. In the totality of the
circumstances convicting the appellant on the basis of
surmises and conjectures is unsustainable. Therefore
appellant has to be given benefit of doubt.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court rests
solely on the alleged dying declaration marked as Exhibits P35
and P36, while except PW18-Manjegowda PWs1, 3, 4 and 5,
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
all the material prosecution witnesses have turned hostile ,
and specifically PW2-Jyothi whose name was mentioned by
the deceased victim in the Exhibit P35 has completely turned
hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. It was
contended that in the absence of any independent
corroboration, the Trial Court erred in placing implicit reliance
on the dying declarations and in recording a finding of guilt,
which does not inspire confidence and is contrary to settled
principles governing criminal trials.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of
PW19-Dr. Krishnamurthy, has fairly admitted that no written
certificate was issued certifying the fitness of the deceased to
give a statement and that the deceased had sustained 85-
90% burn injuries. It was pointed out that the submissions of
PW19 further disclose that the deceased was administered
painkillers, intravenous fluids, analgesics, sedatives and
antibiotics at the relevant time, and that a person with such
extensive burn injuries would be suffering from severe pain,
thereby affecting her mental alertness and voluntariness while
making the statement. It was also submitted that the
Investigating Officer-PW25 and Assistant Commissioner-PW26
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
have failed to follow the procedure laid by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of NARENDAR SINGH. Moreover,
PW25 has not produced the hospital case sheet or treatment
records to establish the fitness condition of the deceased at
the time of recording the dying declaration.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that Exhibit P37, the
Accident Register Extract, merely records the history of burn
injuries and does not disclose the name of the appellant or
attribute any overt act to him. It was argued that the
prosecution has failed to establish cruelty or harassment in
connection with dowry demand soon before the death, which
is an essential ingredient for attracting Section 304-B of the
IPC. On these grounds, learned counsel submitted that the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
Trial Court are unsustainable in law and on facts and warrant
interference by this Hon'ble Court.
12. The counsel further argued that in paragraph 42 of the
impugned judgment records an observation that there were
no reasons to disbelieve the contents of Exhibits P35 and P36.
It further holds that the alternative version put forth by the
accused is that, that the victim caught fire due to the bursting
- 10 -
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
of a kerosene stove. The Trial Court observed that the fire
could not have been caused due to a stove burst and that
someone had set the victim on fire. On that premise, the
Trial Court concluded that the only inference that could be
drawn pointed towards the accused, which is absolutely base
less .It creates reasonable doubt and as such, the appellant
is entitled to be acquitted.
13. On all these grounds the appellant counsel urged for the
acquittal of the accused from the alleged offence by setting
aside the impugned judgment.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE
14. Per contra, learned HCGP Sri B. Lakshman, forcefully
advanced his arguments that the Trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned
judgment. The doctrine of dying declaration is founded on the
maxim "Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire"--a man
will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth. Under Section
32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a statement made by
a person as to the cause of his death or the circumstances of
the transaction resulting in his death becomes relevant when
- 11 -
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
the cause of that person's death is in question. The sanctity
attached to such declaration rests on the presumption that a
person on the verge of death is unlikely to falsely implicate
another. It is well settled that a truthful and voluntary dying
declaration, recorded while the declarant was in a fit state of
mind, can form the sole basis of conviction without
corroboration, provided it inspires confidence of the Court.
The requirement of medical certification is only a rule of
prudence and not an absolute mandate, and the Court must
be satisfied that the declaration was free from tutoring,
prompting or imagination. Absolutely, there are no material
witnesses to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by
the Trial Court. Hence, he sought for the dismissal of this
appeal.
15. After hearing both parties the arguments, the following
points would arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the
Trial Court suffers from any legal infirmities
requiring this Court to intercede?
(2) What order?
16. My answers court to the above points are:
- 12 -
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
Point No. 1 : In the affirmative
Point No. 2 : As per the final order.
REGARDING POINT NO.1:
17. I have carefully re-examined the prosecution evidence,
the materials on record, the impugned judgment and the
arguments submitted on behalf of both sides. The accused is
in judicial custody. Except one witness all the material
witnesses have turned hostile, only on the basis of dying
declaration, which is marked as Exhibit P35 and 36, the trial
court has convicted the accused. The Investigating Officer
has not produced the case sheet maintained by the hospital
authorities to show the condition of the deceased as on the
date of recording dying declaration.PW19-Dr.Krishnamurthy
has deposed that Exhibit P35 dying declaration is recorded in
his presence and has deposed that she has suffered from 90%
burn injuries. During the course of cross-examination of
PW19 has clearly admitted that, he has not issued any written
certificate so as to condition of the deceased to give
statement. Further, he has admitted that at the time of
recording statement he has given pain killers, IV fluids,
- 13 -
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
analgesics, sedatives, antibiotics. Further he has clearly
admitted that, 85-90 burnt injured is injured she will suffering
from severe pain. Therefore, they have given sedatives
injections. Exhibit P37 is the accident Register Extract, the
patient admitted to the hospital with history of burn injuries.
The name of the accused is not known. the evidence of PW19-
Dr.Krishnamurthy, has fairly admitted that no written
certificate was issued certifying the fitness of the deceased to
give a statement and that the deceased had sustained 85-
90% burn injuries. It was pointed out that the submissions of
PW19 further disclose that the deceased was administered
painkillers, intravenous fluids, analgesics, sedatives and
antibiotics at the relevant time, and that a person with such
extensive burn injuries would be suffering from severe pain,
thereby affecting her mental alertness and voluntariness while
making the statement. It was also submitted that the
Investigating Officer PW25 and assistant commissioner PW26
have failed to follow the procedure laid by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of NARENDAR SINGH. Moreover
PW25 has not produced the hospital case sheet or treatment
- 14 -
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
records to establish the fitness condition of the deceased at
the time of recording the dying declaration.
18. PW20, Dr. Nagaraj, Ex.P.37 who was working in
casualty of the Government Hospital, Hassan has stated in his
cross-examination that ಾಯಗ ಂ ಾರ ೋವ ಮತು ಾ ಂದ ಅವ ೆ
ಪ ಣ ¥ÀæeÉÕ¬ÄgÀ°®è. He further admitted that antiseptic injections
and pain killer was given.
19. Another witness, Mr. Manjegowda (PW18), has
deposed that at about 6.00 to 6.15 p.m., he received a phone
call from the deceased herself from an unknown mobile
number, wherein she informed him that her husband had
poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze and sought help to
save her. He has further stated that he immediately
proceeded towards the place of incident at Bandihalli, and by
the time he reached, the ambulance was already present at
the spot and had taken her to Hassan Government Hospital
for treatment. PW18 has also deposed that he was one among
those who had earlier participated in the panchayat convened
for reconciliation between the couple. He has denied any ill-
will against the accused. On perusal of his evidence dated 23rd
- 15 -
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
January, 2012, it is elicited that he received the call between
6.00 and 6.15 p.m. from an unknown number and that he
took about half an hour by car to travel from Haralahalli to
Bandihalli. If the time required for the ambulance to reach the
Government Hospital is also taken into consideration, it would
require approximately half an hour, having regard to the
distance between Bandihalli and Hassan Government Hospital.
Still, according to PW-18, when he reached the place of
incident, the ambulance was present there, which is evident
from his testimony.
20. On perusal of the evidence of PW19-Dr. Krishnamurthy,
Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, he has deposed
that on 13th June, 2010 at about 6.00 p.m., the Chief Medical
Officer sent the deceased for treatment of burn injuries, and
at about 1.30 a.m. on 14th June, 2010, the Assistant
Commissioner recorded the dying declaration, marked as
Ex.P35, after obtaining his oral opinion regarding the fitness
of the deceased to give the statement. The evidence of PW20-
Dr. Nagraj, and Exhibit P37 (MLC) disclose the time as 7.45
p.m. On perusal of Ex.P-37, it is noted that the deceased was
brought by one Chandru in 108 Ambulance for burn injuries at
- 16 -
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
7.45 p.m., and she was thereafter referred to the Surgery
Department. In the cause for admission and history column, it
is mentioned as "suicidal attempt."
21. It can be observed that the entire fact is not put forth
by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt ,as it would
have been. On perusal of the prosecution papers the time of
admission to the hospital is not clear. In Ex p 37 (MLC) it is
7:45 PM and in the evidence of the PW19 it is about 6:00 PM
on 13th June, 2010. The prosecution has not collected the
material fact that from which number, at about 6.00 to 6.15
pm the deceased herself has made a call to the witness
PW18,Manjegowda. I found there are lot of inconsistencies in
proving the alleged incident.
22. The criminal jurisprudence believes in best evidence
rule, in our adversial judicial system an accused is considered
to be an innocent until proven guilty and the guilt of the
accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not
on a mere preponderance of probabilities, thus imposing upon
the prosecution the obligation to adduce the best possible
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The rule has been
defined to mean "so long as the higher or superior evidence is
- 17 -
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall
give no inferior proof in relation to it" In the case
of MOHANLAL SHAMJI SONI V. UNION OF INDIA AND
ANOTHER, it has been held by the Supreme Court that, "...it
is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available
evidence should be brought before the court to prove a fact or
the points in issue."
23. On careful scrutiny of entire evidence placed by the
prosecution, prosecution has put forth best evidence so far as
possible by placing substantial evidence to prove the quilt of
the accused, hence we are of the considered view that the
learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence
on record in a proper perspective manner and has grossly
erred in convicting the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 304B of IPC. On re-evaluation of the material
prosecution witnesses, I found it just and necessary to
interfere in the impugned judgment.
24. Accordingly, the impugned judgment does call for
interference by this Court as the same is suffering from any
legal infirmity. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the
affirmative.
- 18 -
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
REGARDING POINT NO.2:
25. In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, we
proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the accused under Section
374(2) of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 17th August, 2012 passed in
SC No.27 of 2011 by the Additional District &
Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court-I, Hassan
is hereby set aside.
(iii) Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code;
(iii) Member Secretary, District Legal Services
Authority, Hassan, is directed to award
compensation to two minor sons and to take
necessary legal steps in accordance with
relevant acts and rules, in favour of minor
- 19 -
CRL.A No.1180 OF 2012
guardian within 3 months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(iv) Registry is directed to transmit the trial court
records along this judgment to the trial court
and to member secretary, District Legal
Services Authority, Hassan, to take necessary
steps as observed by this court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
