LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the convicted accused against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Fast Track Court, Bangalore City in S.C.No.535/2006 dated 06.09.2008. By the said judgment, the appellant/accused is convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and he sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ -.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that, the deceased Nirmala is the wife of the accused; two children were born out of the wedlock; they were residing in House No.509 situated at Rajiv Gandhinagar, Bangalore; P.W.5 (the brother of the deceased) and P.Ws.7 and 8 (the sisters of the deceased) were residing in the neighbouring house; the accused developed the habit of consuming alcoholic drinks; he started suspecting the fidelity of his wife Nirmala; he used to quarrel with the deceased Nirmala very often after consuming alcohol; despite the advice by the mother, brother and sisters of the deceased, the accused did not improve his conduct. While the deceased was cooking food on kerosene stove at about 7.00 p.m. on 19.02.2006, the accused came to the house under the influence of the alcoholic drinks and picked up quarrel with his wife with the suspicion that she has given part of the salary to the third person with whom she was allegedly having illicit intimacy. He picked up stove, poured kerosene and threw a lighted matchstick on her. On hearing the cries of the victim Nirmala, P.W.3 Smt. Bharathi, the neighbour, rushed to the spot and simultaneously P.W.5 also came to the spot; both P.Ws.3 and 5 extinguished fire by pouring water on the victim; immediately, thereafter the victim was shifted to Sanjeevini Nursing Home, Bangalore for treatment. On receipt of the intimation sent by the hospital, the Police Inspector attached to Rajgopal Nagar Police Station sent a woman Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police to the hospital to record the statement of injured Nirmala. The said Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police recorded the statement of injured in the presence of the Doctor working at Sanjeevini Nursing Home and brought the same to the Police Station, based on which, Crime No.51/2006 was registered by P.W.10 the Sub - Inspector of Police of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station. He took -up the investigation and ultimately laid chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. It is relevant to note here itself that the incident has occurred on 19.02.2006; the victim took treatment in Sanjeevini Nursing Home upto 26.02.2006 and thereafter, she got herself discharged because of her inability to pay the medical bills to the private Nursing Home; ultimately, she succumbed to the injuries on 14.05.2006; after the death of the victim, the provision is altered to Section 302 of IPC as provided under law. The Police after the investigation laid the chargesheet.

(3.) IN order to prove its case the prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses and got marked 8 Exhibits and 4 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, two exhibits were got marked. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record and after hearing, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ -. Learned Amicus Curiae taking us through the entire material on record submits that even assuming that the entire case of the prosecution is true and trustworthy, the accused could not have been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of IPC; at the most, he could have been convicted for the lesser offence of Section 302, Part -I or Part -II of IPC. He further draws the attention of the Court that the woman Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of the victim as per Ex.P6 is not examined; the Doctor before whom the said statement was recorded is also not examined; he further submits that no medical records are produced by the prosecution to show as to what was the condition of the victim from the date of her discharge from the hospital i.e. from 26.02.2006 till her death i.e. 14.05.2006; in the absence of such material, the Trial Court is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the death was the direct result of the burn injuries sustained. He further submits that the victim could have been definitely saved, had she taken the treatment atleast in the Government Hospital subsequent to her discharge from the private hospital.