STATE Vs. SHIVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dtd. 26/2/2016 passed by learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in S.C.No.53/2013, wherein the accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under sec. 498A and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short hereinafter referred as 'IPC').

(2.) The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that deceased Ashwini and accused Shivanna are husband and wife. Their marriage took place on 16/8/2010. It is further case of the prosecution that both accused and Ashwini were living together in the house of the accused. It is further case of the prosecution that on 16/1/2013, the accused brought two sarees out of which he gave one saree having price of Rs.500.00 to his sister's daughter and he gave another saree which is of cheaper rate i.e., Rs.250.00 to his wife Ashwini. In this regard, at about 7.30 p.m., a quarrel took place between the accused and deceased Ashwini and in that quarrel, the accused abused Ashwini stating that she is quarrelling too much and she should die. After hearing such words, immediately deceased Ashwini poured kerosene on herself at that time, the accused set her on fire by means of a cigarette, as a result, fire caught to her dress and Ashwini sustained severe burn injuries. Thereafterwards, Ashwini was taken to Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore and was admitted as inpatient for burn injuries in Burns ward. It is the prosecution allegation that that injured Ashwini informed her mother about the incident. Subsequently, she succumbed to the burn injuries in the hospital. The mother of deceased by name Smt.Bharathi lodged a complaint as per Ex-P6 on 17/1/2013. Accordingly, the Suratkal police registered the case in Cr.No.16/2013 for the offences under Sec. 504 and 306 of IPC. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 19/1/2013 at Wenlock Hospital at about 7.15 a.m. Sri.Kumareshwaran, Station House Officer-PW-20 who received the complaint from the mother of deceased Ashwini sent the FIR-Ex-P28 to the court. PW-20-PSI found that injured Ashwini was not in a position to speak, but her relatives were present. Therefore, he gave requisition to the Duty Doctor to give report regarding the condition and state of mind of injured Ashwini. On the same day(17/1/2013) afternoon, the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Mangaluru also visited the hospital along with Dr BalakrishnaPW-11. At that time, Ashwini was not in a position to speak. Accordingly, the Doctor-PW-11 has given request and endorsement as per Ex-P24 and Ex-P25. As Ashwini was not able to speak anything, PW-20 registered the said case. Then on 18/1/2013, PW-20 visited the shed where the accused was residing and conducted place of offence panchanama as per Ex-P20 in the presence of the witnesses PW-8 and PW-9 as per the place shown by PW-7. PW-20 also seized burnt chudidhar top and pant of Ashwini, half burnt cigarette, ashes of chudidhar cloth and a bisleri bottle having kerosene and one matchbox, under PF as per M.O.1 to M.O.7. PW-20 also recorded statement of the witnesses and also prepared the sketch map in respect of place of offence as per Ex-P33. Then on 19/1/2013, PW-20 received the information that injured Ashwini succumbed to the burn injuries. Accordingly, PW-20 received the information as per Ex-P34. Then PW-20 requested the court to register the case under Sec. 302 IPC. Then he gave requisition to the Taluka Executive Magistrate to conduct inquest over the deadbody of deceased Ashwini as her death had taken place within seven years from the date of her marriage. Accordingly, inquest was conducted as per Ex-P29. Thereafterwards, PW-20 recorded statement of the witnesses present at the time of inquest. It is further stated that at the time of inquest, the accused was also present, he was arrested by PW-20 and produced before the court. Then on 23/1/2013, PW-20 received the inquest mahazar and he also collected the photos-Ex-P37 taken at the time of place of offence and photos taken at the Wenlock Hospital at Ex-P37 and thereafterwards handed over further investigation to PW-19 M.A. Nataraj. Said Nataraj- PW-19 collected the documents and photos relating to marriage of deceased Ashwini and after collecting the MOs sent the seized articles to FSL for chemical examination to Bengaluru, then after receiving report as per Ex-P30 and after completing investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated above.

(3.) Said case was committed by the learned JMFC to the court of sessions after completing the provisions of Sec. 207 208 and 209 Cr.P.C. The learned sessions judge after hearing both sides framed the charge against the accused for the offences under Sec. 498A and 302 IPC. Thereafterwards, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-21 and got marked 38 documents as Ex-P1 to P38 and got identified seven material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.7. The statement of the accused under sec. 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied the circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused has not chosen to lead any defence evidence. The accused has filed his written statement. The accused in his written statement has stated that himself and his wife Ashwini were residing at Hosabettu and they were doing coolie work. There was puberty function of his sister's daughter for which he had brought a saree to his sister's daughter and also to his wife Ashwini, but deceased Ashwini quarrelled with him stating that he had brought a costly saree for his sister's daughter and a cheaper saree to her and stating so, she went inside and poured kerosene on herself and set fire and tried to commit suicide. Then he tried to extinguish fire and in the process, he also sustained injuries to his hands. He has also stated that deceased Ashwini has sustained burn injuries all over her body and she had lost conscious. The people admitted her to Mangalore Hospital. She did not regain conscious and she died. He has not committed any offence. So this is the defence of the accused. Thereafterwards, after hearing the arguments, the learned sessions judge acquitted the accused for the offences stated above which is assailed by the State in this appeal.