K RAMAKRISHNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant-accused under S. 374 (2) of the Cr. P. C. against the judgment of conviction dated 19/4/1996, passed by the learned sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in S. C. No. 68/1994, whereby the trial Court sentenced him to undergo R. I. for 7 years for the offence punishable under S. 306 of the I. P. C. and further R. I. for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under S. 498-A of the i. P. C. The appellant herein not being satisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions judge, Chitradurga, challenged in this appeal on the following grounds.

(2.) LEARNED Sessions Judge has gravely erred in convicting the appellant-accused for the aforesaid offences. It is full of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The evidence of official witnesses has not been corroborated by any of the independent witnesses. Even then, the learned Sessions Judge, accepted the partial and one side version of the prosecution case and consequently come to a wrong conclusion and the prosecution has suppressed the true version of the incident and in spite of that the trial Court has erred in accepting the evidence of the Police witnesses. The trial Court also not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed through P. Ws. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 13. So-called dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased-Thippakka alias thippamma is inadmissible in the evidence. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE brief facts leading to this case are that the appellant is none other than the husband of late Thippamma and father of deceased-Renukamma. The marriage of this appellant took place about 26 years ago with the deceased-Thippamma. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant always consumed liquor and quarrelling with his wife Thippamma and daughter, renukamma and that he had illicit relationship with some other woman and he wanted to bring her to the house, but the deceased-Thippamma and her daughter, late renukamma, opposed the same. On 21-3-1993 at about 9 p. m. , when the wife and daughter of the appellant were in the house, along with the son of the appellant, P. W. 3 r. Govindaraj, the appellant-accused, by consuming liquor, started quarrelling with his wife, but P. W. 3 R. Govindaraj, son of the appellant-accused, thinking that it has become usual practice of his father to quarrel with his mother and sister, had left the house before 9 p. m. According to the prosecution case, P. W. 4 Kyasanaika, who was also residing in the nearby Police quarters came and advised the appellant and his wife not to quarrel. After some time, the appellant-accused went outside and so also, P. W. 4 Kyasanaika. But, the deceased-Thippamma and her daughter, late renukamma, committed suicide by pouring kerosene and set themselves on fire, after bolting the door from inside. After observing the kerosene smell, P. W. 5 M. Humayun, who is also a Police Constable put up in the first floor of the Police quarters as well as P. W. 4 Kyasanaika, came and broke open the door and found the wife and daughter of the appellant-accused burnt and p. W. 5 M. Humayun extinguished the fire by pouring water and secured the ambulance and shifted them to the C. 'g. Hospital, davanagere and P. W. 1 Dr. K. Siddappa admitted both Thippamma and her daughter Renukamma and sent M. L. C. letter to the concerned Police. P. W. 13, the then police Inspector came and recorded the statement of P. W. 1 and on the same night, registered the case for offences under Ss. 498-A and 306 of the I. P. C. , in the presence of p. W. 1 and submitted the F. I. R. In spite of the treatment given to them, Kumari renukamma died on 24-3-1993 at 8. 5 a. m. , whereas Thippamma died on 27-3-1993 at 19. 45 p. m. During the course of investigation, p. W. 13 inspected the spot and drawn spot mahazar and recovered incriminating articles found in the house. The inquest was held over the dead body of Thippamma and renukamma. Soon after, the appellant-accused was arrested and produced before the court. The statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded, including P. W. 3 R. Govindaraj, son of the appellant-accused and charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 306 of the I. P. C. So, after hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial court framed the charges for the aforesaid offences. So, in order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses (P. Ws. 1 to 13) along with Ex. P1 to Ex. P14 (a) and m. Os. 1 to 5. Thereafter, the trial Court recorded the statement of the appellant-accused under S. 313 of the Cr. P. C. The defense of the accused is totally denied. Hence, the trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the Public Prosecutor, after going through the records, after hearing the submission of the accused and after considering the entire evidence, found that the appellant-accused found guilty of the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 306 of the I. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for 7 years for the offence under S. 306, I. P. C. and further R. I. for a period of 3 years for the offence under S. 498-A of I. PC. , with direction that both sentences to run concurrently.