STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. VIJAYA BHIMA CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused.

(2.) The state is in appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent-accused in the following background. It was alleged by the Prosecution, that on 19th Feb., 2009, one Sonabai, who was the wife of the respondent-accused, when was at home in the evening at about 8.00 p.m., her husband had returned home in a drunken state and had immediately picked up a quarrel with the complainant-Sona Bai and attacked her. Since she was fed up with his behaviour over a period of time, though they were married only for over a period of one year prior to the incident, and since the argument ensued, it was alleged that the accused-respondent immediately poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, as a result of which she had suffered serious burn injuries and was admitted to a hospital for treatment. Thereafter, she was discharged from the hospital and when she was back in her matrimonial home as on 3rd May, 2009, at about 6.00 a.m. she is said to have died. This according to the prosecution was a direct result of injuries caused by the respondent-accused as on 19th Feb., 2009, and in that background a case was registered against respondent-accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, after further proceedings whereby the respondent-accused was committed to the Court below, the accused have pleaded not guilty and have claimed to be tried, the prosecution had tendered evidence and it had examined witnesses PW1 to PW22 and marked several exhibits and material objects in support of its case. The Trial Court had framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) The learned Additional Advocate General in support of the grounds raised in the appeal contends that the Trial Court failed to address the facts and circumstances of the case. It is riot denied that it was an unnatural and homicidal death within one year from the date of marriage. Therefore, the burden was on the accused to rebut the presumption that the death was not unnatural and that it was not caused by the bum injuries as a result of the accused have set her on fire. The fact remains that she was admitted to hospital by her brother, who was said to be residing in the neighbourhood and the deceased have in her own words narrated the manner in which the incident had occurred which was treated as a complaint and further action have been taken and death of the deceased have occurred soon thereafter within a period of two and a half months, the only presumption that could have been drawn was that there was a dying declaration in support of the case of prosecution notwithstanding that except the brother of the deceased, the other witnesses did not choose to support the case of the prosecution.