State of Karnataka vs Narasimharaju

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.6.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XII, Bengaluru City in Sessions Case No. 1072/2008, is appealed against by the State.

The respondent/accused was tried for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that, the accused/respondent herein is the husband of Smt. Kempamma (injured - PW.1); two daughters are born out of the wedlock; that the respondent was not doing any work and on the other hand he was a drunkard; he used to stay at home expecting money from his wife; he used to ill treat the victim; because of non-co ordination between the parties, a Divorce Petition was filed by him against his wife; however, compromise took place between the couple and they decided to lead a cordial life thereafter; the respondent promised his wife that he would look after her well and consequently PW.1 started living once again in the matrimonial house with the accused; since three days prior to the incident in question, the accused did not come to the matrimonial home; on 20.6.2008, complainant/the wife of accused went to her mother-in-law''s house at 10 a.m., and saw her husband/accused sitting in the first floor of the house, consuming liquor and in that context, an altercation took place between the couple; the accused after abusing her in filthy language took out MO No. 4-bottle in which kerosene/petrol was available; the accused splashed the said liquid on the victim and set her ablaze; when she raised hue and cry, her mother-in-law/mother of the accused rushed immediately and saved the life of the wife of accused; she was initially admitted at Subbaiah Hospital and thereafter admitted to Victoria Hospital.

During the course of treatment, she lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 at 8 p.m. on the very day i.e. 20.6.2008 against the accused, which came to be registered in Yeshwanthapura Police Station by Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at 9.55 p.m. in Crime No. 231/2008. The police after investigation laid the charge sheet.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses; got marked 10 exhibits and 6 material objects. On behalf of defence, one exhibit i.e., Ex.D1 is marked on the statement of PW.2. The trial Court after evaluation of entire material, as aforementioned acquitted the accused.

PW.1-Kempamma, who is the Complainant/victim has deposed supporting her version as per Ex.P1.

PW.2-Kaveramma is the sister of the victim. She admitted the victim to the Victoria Hospital. It is relevant to note that the victim was immediately admitted to Subbaiah Hospital by her mother-in-law/Smt. Lakshmamma, who is not examined before the Court.

PW.3-Akkayamma is the mother of the victim. She has deposed about ill treatment by the accused against PW.1.

PW.4 - Narayana is a relative of the accused. However, his evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution in as much as he has not deposed anything against the accused.

PW.5-Shamaraju is the brother of PW.1. His version is on par with the version of PW.2. He has also deposed about harassment by the accused.

PW.6-Kempegowda, is the Investigating officer, who registered the crime based on the statement of the victim and investigated the crime to certain extent.

PW.7-Ningaiah, is the Police Constable, who carried certain articles to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.

PW.8-Yeshwanth, is another Investigating Officer. He also conducted part of the investigation.

PW.9-Dr. Anil Shah is the Doctor, who examined the victim and issued intimation letter as per Ex.P5. The evidence of PW.9 discloses that the victim/PW.1 had come to the hospital at 11.15 a.m. on 20.6.2008 and she had given history that she herself lit fire after pouring petrol. She was given first-aid treatment in the hospital and thereafter the patient was referred to higher centre. PW.9 is the Doctor attached to Subbaiah Hospital.

PW.10-Gangadhar, is the Police Constable, who participated in the investigation to certain extent.

PW.11-K.Ravishankar is the Investigating Officer, who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

PW.12-Dr R. Ramesh is a Doctor working in Victoria Hospital, wherein, PW.1 took treatment after discharge from Subbaiah Hospital.

In her examination-in-chief, the said Doctor has deposed that the victim had told him that she has suffered 40% burns because of the act committed by her husband. However, in the cross-examination, the Doctor has admitted that he has not issued any certificate to show that the victim has suffered 40% burns. He has further admitted he has not issued any wound certificate in favour of PW.1.

The case of the prosecution fully rests on the evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of the Doctors - PWs.9 and 12. Of course, we have got the evidence of PWs.3 and 5, who supported the case of prosecution by deposing that the accused used to harass the victim. But the case of the prosecution for the offence under Section 307 of IPC fully rests on the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the evidence of Doctors.

Ex.P1 - first information lodged by the victim is in consonance with her version before the Court to the effect that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. But there is no supporting medical evidence. As aforementioned, PW.9 - the Doctor attached to Subbaiah Hospital, wherein, the victim immediately took the treatment, had recorded the history to the effect that the victim herself poured kerosene and set herself fire. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was the cause for the burn injuries. But looking to the evidence of PW.9 - the Doctor, it is clear that the accused is not responsible for causing the injuries. The said Doctor-PW.9 had given first aid and thereafter referred the victim to higher centre. The version of PW.9 makes the prosecution case against the accused highly doubtful. The history as stated by the victim before the Doctor-P.W.9 completely takes away the case against the accused in as much as she has admitted before the said Doctor that she had herself poured kerosene and set herself ablaze. The same is clear from the deposition of the Doctor.

The evidence of PW.12 - another Doctor who treated the victim at Victoria Hospital completely destroys the case of prosecution. Though he has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the victim has suffered 40% burn injuries, in the cross examination, he has clearly admitted that he has not issued any certificate to show that the victim has suffered 40% burn injuries. He has further admitted that he has not issued any medical certificate showing that the victim has suffered any injury.

In the absence of any medical evidence supporting the case of prosecution, more particularly, the version of the victim, the trial Court is justified in not believing the case of the prosecution against the accused. Merely on the basis of the oral say of a witness, accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Since it is a specific case of the prosecution that the victim has suffered burn injuries because of the illegal act of the accused, the said fact needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by adducing medical evidence in support of the case of prosecution. Though the Doctors, who treated the victim are examined before the Court, both of them have deposed against the case of the prosecution in as much as there is nothing on record to show that the victim had sustained any burn injury much less the 40% burn injuries as alleged.

In the absence of any medical evidence on record against the accused, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused by granting the benefit of doubt in favour of accused. The view taken by the trial Court is the only possible view under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.