AKKAMAHADEVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused/Appellant Akkamahadevi was charged with an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short the 'IPC') The prosecution story was that the accused had developed intimacy with the Planning Officer, Krishnamurthy (PW-13), resident of Shimoga . She was shifted to Thirthahalli, where in she was working as a 'Cook' in a hostel. In Shimoga, Saraswathi, the deceased had become friendly with her and was having an affair with PW-13. In November, 1993, PW-13 told Akkamahdevi, accused to bring Saraswathi to Thirthahalli on the night of 7th January, 1993, so that all the three could go to Udupi, Goa and other places. In view of this, the deceased came to Thirthahalli and was staying with the accused at her house. On the pretext of cleaning the deceased's ornaments, the accused took her ornaments, put them in soap water and kept the container on a shelf. The deceased took bath and was having a slight fever. Thereafter, she sat before the fire in the oven situated at bathroom to warm herself. At that time the accused came from behind and gave a blow on her head, and pushed her into fire. Resultantly, saree of the deceased caught fire and even there after the accused pushed again her into the fire. The deceased managed to get up but by that time she had been completely engulfed in the flames. Back of her head was bleeding. Even in that condition, she chased the accused, who had already ran out and was standing on a platform at the coconut tree in front of her house. Hearing the noise of the deceased, neighbours of the accused PW-1 Thimmappa Shetty, PW-2 Bhaskaran and others came and extinguished the fire on the body of the deceased. At that point of time, she was shouting that her ornaments had been taken by the accused. She even told the people, who had gathered, the above story. PW-1 went to a nearby hotel and made a phone call to the police, PW-18 the investigating officer accompanied by police constable came there. She was shifted to hospital where she was examined by PW-17 Dr. G.D. Narayanappa and was given treatment. Her statement was recorded by the investigating officer as per Ex.P-11 and after returning to the police station at 11.30 p.m. he registered a case against the accused under Sections 302 and 380, IPC. Later the deceased died.

(2.) To prove the above case, the prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses, which included PW-1, PW-2. The persons who had seen the deceased immediately after she came out of the house of the accused. Both the investigating officer and the doctor testified before the trial court. However, the trial court vide its judgment dated 15th February, 1999, found serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Furthermore, held that Ex.P-9 and P-11 were not reliable pieces of evidence and while declining to treat Ex.P-11 as admissible and valid dying declaration, acquitted the accused while recording the following finding:

(3.) Against this judgment of acquittal, the State preferred an appeal and the High Court vide its judgment dated 4th November, 2004, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal finding accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, awarded her life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court converting the acquittal into conviction, the accused/Appellant has filed the present appeal.