RAVINDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 25 -11 -2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 17, Bangalore City in Sessions Case No. 733 of 2008, convicting accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 302, 307 and 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, is called in question in this criminal appeal. Case of the prosecution in brief is that accused 3 is the first wife of deceased Muniyappa; disputes arose between deceased Muniyappa and accused 3 after few years of the marital life; two children were born out of the wedlock between the deceased Muniyappa and accused 3 -Rekhadevi; since the disputes could not be resolved between the parties, accused 3 started residing in her parents place; deceased Muniyappa married Smt. Pushpa (another deceased); out of the said wedlock between Muniyappa and Pushpa a child was born and the said child was aged about two years at the time of incident in question. It is the further case of the prosecution that accused 1 -Ravindra alias Ravi is the paramour of accused 3 -Rekhadevi and accused 4 -Varalaxmamma (who is acquitted by the Trial Court) is the mother of accused 3 -Rekhadevi. Accused 2 -Sampath is the friend of accused 1. Accused 3 in order to do away with the life of her husband Muniyappa and second wife of Muniyappa namely, Pushpa, she came along with accused 1, 2 and 4 at about 3.00 a.m. on 13 -1 -2008 to the house of deceased and both the deceased and the child aged about 2 years were sleeping inside the house; the house of Muniyappa and Pushpa was having asbestos sheet roof; all the accused broke open the asbestos sheet roof of the house of deceased and poured kerosene as well as petrol inside the house and set the house on fire, consequent upon which, both the deceased namely, Muniyappa and Pushpa as well as their daughter (Lakshmishree) aged about 2 years sustained injuries. All the injured were shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. Pushpa succumbed to burn injuries on 16 -1 -2008, whereas Muniyappa succumbed on 26 -1 -2008. Fortunately, the two years old child Kum. Lakshmishree who has sustained about 25% burns survived.

(2.) IN order to prove its case, prosecution in all examined 32 witnesses and got marked 40 exhibits and 7 material objects. On behalf of the defence no evidence was recorded. As aforementioned, the Trial Court acquitted accused 4 and convicted accused 1 to 3 for the offences with which they are charged.

(3.) SRI Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of accused 1 taking us through the entire material on record submits that the case as made out by the prosecution appears to be artificial; the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 10 who allegedly saw certain of the accused running away from the scene appears to be very much doubtful; no independent witnesses from the locality, whose presence would be natural, are examined; the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the crime; the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 10 differ materially; the names of P.Ws. 3 and 10 are not found in the dying declaration though P.Ws. 3 and 10 were very much known to both the deceased. He further submits that the dying declaration allegedly made by Pushpa (Ex. P. 22) is not supported by any medical evidence, inasmuch as, there is no endorsement of the Doctor on the said dying declaration. According to him, the presumption drawn and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court are not proper and correct.