STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. LALASAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.01.2011 passed on the Sessions Case No. 18/2010 by the Sessions Court, Bagalkot is called into question in this appeal by the State.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Reshma married accused No. 1 Lalsab about six years prior to the date of the incident; accused Nos. 2 and 3 are father and mother of accused No. 1; accused No. 4 is the grand -mother of accused No. 1 (accused Nos. 2 and 4 have expired as of now); after the marriage, all the accused started demanding additional amount of dowry from the parents of the deceased; since such demand was not met by the parents of the deceased, the accused started torturing the deceased both physically and mentally; ultimately at 6.00 p.m. on 07.06.2009 all the accused held the deceased in the matrimonial house, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire; the victim Smt. Reshma raised hue and cry and immediately thereafter the neighbours came to the scene of offence and shifted injured Reshma to hospital after extinguishing fire; the statement of victim Reshma was recorded in the hospital on 08.06.2009 at 4.00 p.m. by the Sub -Inspector of Police (PW 13) in the hospital as per Ex. P20; based on such statement of Reshma, Crime No. 88/2009 came to be registered against all the accused. The police laid the charge sheet after completing the investigation. The victim succumbed to injuries on 29.06.2009 while she was taking treatment at hospital in Bagalkot.

(3.) SRI . C.S. Patil, Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State taking us through the material on record and the judgment of the court below submits that the Trial Court is not justified in ignoring the evidence of PWs. 10, 11 and 12 who are the Taluka Executive Magistrate and the doctors; the court below has wrongly brushed aside Ex. P6 -the dying declaration recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate -PW. 10 in the presence of the doctor PW. 12; there is nothing on record to suspect the veracity of the victim as found in Ex. P6 and therefore the judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be reversed. He further submits that the appreciation of evidence by the court below is improper and incorrect.