STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court -VIII, Bengaluru in S.C. No. 964/2010 acquitting accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 302 of IPC is called in question in this appeal.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that the accused is the husband of deceased Smt. Chennamma; he used to consume alcohol everyday; he used to torture the victim/his wife (Chennamma) since she was objecting to his bad habits; the accused raised huge loans and he did not repay the loans; on the date of incident i.e., on 20.04.2010 at about 7.00 p.m. when the accused and deceased only were there inside the house, in which time, their minor daughter Kumari Monica (P.W. 3) was playing outside the house, the accused quarrelled with the deceased once again, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The neighbours extinguished fire and admitted the victim Chennamma to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru; since the accused tried to extinguish fire, he had also sustained certain injuries on his hands. At about 10.15 p.m. on the very day i.e., 20.04.2010, the statement of Smt. Chennamma was recorded as per Ex. P -13 by the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police, based on which Crime No. 100/2010 came to be registered in Hebbal Police Station, Benglauru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC. Subsequently, another dying declaration as per Ex. P -9 came to be recorded on 21.04.2010 by the Taluka Executive Magistrate at about 4.30 p.m. Both the dying declarations were recorded in the presence of the doctors. The Inspector of Police (P.W. 18) laid charge sheet after completion of investigation.

(3.) SRI Chetan Desai, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State taking us through the entire material on record submits that the reasons assigned and the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court are not just and proper; the two dying declarations (Exs. P -13 and P -9) coupled with the evidence of doctors as well as the persons, who recorded the dying declarations, would amply prove the case of the prosecution; since the dying declarations are supported by the other attending circumstances and as the presence of the accused is not disputed the Trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused. Per contra, Sri. Vageesh Hiremath, learned Amicus Curiae has argued supporting the judgment of the Court below.