SUBBARAYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is convicted accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in S. C. No. 218/95 on the file of the I Addl Sessions Judge, Kolar.

(2.) THE facts leading to this case are that deceased Rangamma and the accused were living as wife and husband in a hut situated in the land of Akkulamma at Madapalli. Since one month prior to the incident the accused used to quarrel with the deceased by telling that he does not want to cohabit with her any more. At about 8. 30 p. m. on 3-3-1993, the accused picked quarrel with the deceased and told her that she should leave the house. The deceased questioned the accused as to why she should leave the house and that she will reside with him only. At that point of time, the husband took out a tin containing kerosene and poured the kerosene on the body of the deceased and set her on fire. Thereafter, the accused went out of the house by closing the door and bolting it from outside. As the deceased started to cry in a loud voice for help, PWs. 2 and 5 came to the house and opened the door. She was brought outside the house by these two persons and the fire was extinguished. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Bagepalli. The Doctor, P. W. 7, gave her first aid treatment and reported about the incident to the concerned police at about 2 a. m. on 4-3-93 as per EX. P. 6 which was received by the Head Constable of Bagepalli Police Station who was the then Station House Officer, during the mid-night. He rushed to the said Hospital and as the deceased was in a fit state to give the statement, the said Head Constable, P. W. 16 recorded the statement of the injured as per Ex. P. 7. On the basis of the said statement, PW. 16-Head Constable registered a case in Cr. No. 23/93 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore wherein she was declared dead. After receipt of the intimation of death, Section 302 IPC is added in the case. The Sub-Inspector of Police, namely Sri Lokeshwara with the help P W. 16 investigated into the crime to certain extent and thereafter handed over the investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police, PW. 14-Sri M. A. Hussain. After completing the investigation, the Inspector lodged Charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. As the accused did not plead guilty for the charges leveled against him, the trial was proceeded against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and got marked 20 exhibits. After hearing, the Court below convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for life and to pay a fine of RS. 1,000/- with a default clause.

(3.) THIS appeal is filed by the accused as an indigent person through jail authorities. Therefore, this Court had requested Sri B. Anand, learned Advocate to assist the Court as amicus curiae. Heard Sri B. Anand, and Sri H. V. Ramesh, learned HCGP for the State. The learned amicus curiae submitted that the evidence on record is not properly appreciated by the Court below, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Though all the material witnesses have turned hostile, the trial Court has not given due importance for the same. He further submitted that except the evidence of PWs. 7 and 16 and the alleged dying declaration as per Ex. P. 7, absolutely, there is no material on record against the accused. As there is contradictory material in the dying declaration and the evidence of PWs. 7 and 16, the Court below should not have relied upon the dying declaration and the evidence of the above two witnesses. On the other hand, Sri Ramesh, learned HCGP argued in support of the judgment and order of conviction of the Court below.