STATE Vs. AKKAMAHADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred by the State, judgment of the Sessions judge, Shimoga, acquitting the respondent (accused) of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of the IPC, has been challenged.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows: the accused Akkamahadevi was earlier a resident of Shimoga. There, she had developed intimacy with a Planning Officer, Shimoga (P. W. 13 ). Then she shifted to Thirthahalli. She began to work as a cook in a hostel. In Shimoga, Saraswathi (the deceased) had become friendly with her and that had led to P. W. 13 having an affair with Saraswathi also. In November 1993, P. W. 13 told Akkamahadevi (the accused/respondent) to bring Saraswathi to Thirthahalli on the night of 7-11-1993, so that all the three could go to Udupi, Goa and other places. Accordingly Saraswathi had been brought by the accused to Thirthahalli and was staying with her in her house. On that day, on the pretext of cleaning Saraswathi's ornaments, the accused took her ornaments, put them in soap water and kept the container on a shelf. Saraswathi took cold water bath, which caused a slight fever by the evening. Therefore, the accused asked Saraswathi to sit before the oven in the bathroom to warm herself. Saraswathi sat before fire in the oven situated in the bathroom. At that time, the accused came behind her and pushed her into fire in the oven. The fire caught the saree of Saraswathi and she attempted to get up. At that time, the accused once again pushed her into the oven and hit on the back of her head by means of a blow pipe. Saraswathi managed to get up. By that time, the fire had engulfed her. Back of her head was bleeding. In that position, she chased the accused, who ran out and stood on the platform at the coconut tree in front of her house. Hearing the cries of Saraswathi, neighbours of the accused i. e. , p. W. 1-Thimmappa Shetty, P. W. 2-Bhaskaran and others came and extinguished the fire on the body of Saraswathi. Saraswathi was shouting 'give ornaments, give ornaments' and when the assembled people asked her as to what had happened, Saraswathi told them that under the pretext of cleaning the ornaments, the accused had taken her ornaments, that she (the accused) had pushed her into the fire in the oven and had beaten her. P. W. 1 went to a nearby hotel and made a phone call to the police. P. W. 18, L. Sevyanaika, P. S. I, accompanied by a police constable P. W. 21-Basavaraj went there. The P. S. I, shifted saraswathi to the hospital where she was examined by P. W. 17, Dr. G. D. Narayanappa. She was given treatment. Her statement was recorded by the P. S. I, as per Ex. P. 11 and after returning to the police station at about 11. 30 P. M. he registered a case against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of the IPC and forwarded the FIR. The next day early morning at 5. 00 O'clock, saraswathi died. P. W. 18-L. Sevyanaika took the panchas to the house of the accused at 9. 30 a. m. and in the presence of panchas and the accused, he seized the ornaments of the deceased M. Os. 1 to 6 under a mahazar. A spot mahazar was also conducted and the accused was arrested. She was produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate who remanded her to judicial custody pending further investigation. After further investigation, a charge-sheet was placed against the accused-respondent.

(3.) THE prosecution examined in all 21 witnesses and closed its case. P. Ws. 1 to 3 and P. W. 14 are stated to be eye-witnesses. P. W. 4 is a panch for the Mahazar in which ornaments of the deceased (M. Os. 1 to 6) were recovered from the possession of the accused. After the case of the prosecution was closed, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. , wherein she denied the incident and contended that a false case had been instituted against her. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Sessions Judge passed the judgment holding that the so-called dying declaration stated to have been made by the deceased was not reliable particularly in view of certain inconsistencies and the absence of medical certificate with regard to her mental condition at that time; and in the result, he passed a judgment of acquittal, challenging which the present appeal has been preferred.