IRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is one most of the distressing cases wherein a young wife has lost her life due to burn injuries. The accused before us is the husband and the prosecution, as invariably happens, contended that the relationship between the spouses was not good that there were frequent quarrels between them and that on the date of the incident i. e. 7-10-1995 around dinner time, one more such verbal altercation had taken place. Pursuant to this, it is alleged, that the accused-husband doused the clothes of the deceased-wife with kerosene oil and set fire to the clothes by means of a match stick. The wife Gangavva undoubteldy screamed out in pain which resulted in the congregation of several persons there. The flames were ultimately put off and Gangavva who was badly burnt was taken to the Primary Health Centre. She was treated there but the Doctor found her condition to be serious. The Police were informed and Gangavva was thereafter taken to the hospital at Haveri. In the meanwhile, the Police had recorded her statement which has subsequently been converted to the status of a dying declaration. Gangavva's condition deteriorated and even though she technically survived for 41 days, she ultimately died on 17-11-1995 at 6. 00 p. m. The husband had been arrested in the meanwhile and came to be charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. The learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence held the accused guilty and convicted him of the offence of murder and sentenced him to undergo a life sentence. The present appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence.

(2.) MR. Patil, learned counsel who represents the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has jumped to the conclusion of guilt without having carefully evaluated the finer points of the case. As far as the oral evidence is concerned, he submits that even if the witnesses have indicated some background of quarrels which are said to have been taken place between the spouses, there is nothing to indicate that the nature of the hostility was so serious or so grave as to justify a situation thereby the accused would go to the extent of killing his wife. As far as this argument is concerned, the learned Addl. SPP has submitted that so long as this evidence is on record, it would indicate a background of ill-feeling and that it would also provide a possible motive or ground for the accused having set fire to the deceased wife. His submission is that as long as the relationship was not good, the prosecution is entitled to rely on this circumstance. We need to record here that having regard to the normal situation prevalent in married life more importantly at the strata to which the accused belongs, that quarrels and scuffles between the spouses is not something unusual particularly in poverty conditions and that unless it is shown that there is a very long standing or a very deep seated hostility, that this ground alone may not be good enough to justify the commission of such an offence. We do not lose sight of the fact that numerous instances had come up before the Courts where even without such a background, on the spur of the moment tempers have run high and incidents of the present type have taken place. In the present case, however, the evidence with regard to the background relationship between the parties is rather casual and is not conclusive.

(3.) MR. Patil thereafter seriously attacked the evidence of the solitary eye-witness who happens to be none other, than the son of the accused and the deceased, viz. PW 4. Undoubtedly, this evidence is not of much consequence because the boy who was admittedly present on the scene and who was aged only 8 years old has virtually supported the defence theory that the clothes of the deceased caught fire and that his father tried to help her. Mr. Patil submitted that even the rest of the evidence of PW 4 is no way helpful to the prosecution. We are generally in agreement with the submission, even though the learned Addl. SPP did try to argue that this witness has deposed to the fact that violent quarrels took place between the two spouses.