State of Karnataka vs Ravi

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J—The judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.08.2010 passed by the Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court, Bengaluru City (CCH-46) in S.C. No. 209/2007 is called in question in this appeal by the State.

By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 of IPC.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that accused and deceased Geetha were loving each other since fifteen years prior to her death; after the marriage, the couples started residing at Vaderahalli Extension in a rented house; they had two daughters namely Sindhu and Bindhu, aged about 12 years and 9 years respectively; the accused used to scold the deceased Geetha that she is not working and that he alone is working; on the ground that deceased was not working and sitting in the house idle, the accused was insisting the deceased to go for work; since the deceased did not go to work, accused used to abuse and assault her often; at 2.00 p.m. on 11.05.2006 accused started quarreling with the deceased; the deceased got into the bedroom and bolted from inside; the accused in order to commit murder of the deceased, poured kerosene on her through the slit in between the two shutters of the door and set her ablaze by lighting the matchstick and throwing it through the slit; the deceased started crying loudly; the neighbours to the house rushed to the spot and broke open the door; the accused in order to save the life of the deceased, tried to extinguish the fire; however, he also sustained some burn injuries.

Immediately, the victim was shifted to the hospital in the evening on 11.05.2006 at which point of time Dr. Thyagaraj (P.W. 15) was in charge of the burn ward of the hospital; he admitted the victim at 8.15 p.m. to the hospital and during the treatment, the deceased Geetha succumbed to burn injuries at 8.50 p.m. on the very day i.e. on 11.05.2006. The death memo was sent to Police Station as per Ex. P-18 by the doctor, based on which the complaint came to be registered by the Police in Crime No. 105/2006.

P.W. 17, the Inspector of Police, has completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

P.Ws. 1 to 12, who are the close relatives of the deceased as well as panchas, etc., turned hostile to the case of the prosecution; none of them supported either the case of defence or the prosecution even during the course of their cross-examination. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 12 is of no consequence inasmuch as their versions do not support either the case of the prosecution or the defence.

P.Ws. 13 to 17 are the Police Officials as well as the doctors.

P.W. 13 is the Inspector of Police, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased as per Ex. P-14 in the presence of doctor (P.W. 19); he has conducted the part of investigation. P.W. 14 is the Police Official, who participated during the course of investigation; he brought the death memo from the hospital and produced the same before P.W. 13. P.W. 15 is the doctor, who admitted the victim to the hospital and sent the death memo to the Police as per Ex. P-18. P.W. 16 is the Police Constable, who carried the articles for Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. P.W. 17 is the Police Inspector; he completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet. P.W. 18 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination; he has opined that deceased died due to burn injuries. P.W. 19 is the doctor; according to him the victim was brought by the accused at 4.40 p.m. on 11.05.2006 for treatment regarding the burn injuries; at the time of treatment Geetha was conscious; she has suffered 70-75% of burn injuries; he has sent the memo to the Victoria Out-Post Police Station regarding the admission of injured to the hospital; he certified the dying declaration marked as per Ex. P-14 that the victim was in fit condition to make statement.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has not treated the deceased Geetha; the deceased has orally told before him that the accused had set her ablaze and that Geetha had sustained burn injuries all over the body.

In the matter on hand, the case of the prosecution fully rests on the dying declaration (Ex. P-14) allegedly made by the victim. It is not in dispute that the accused also sustained injuries; it is also not in dispute that the accused tried to save the life of the victim by breaking open the door with the help of neighbours and he shifted the victim to the hospital. Though it is the case of the prosecution that accused did not have children, the material on record amply shows that the couple had got two children namely Sindhu and Bindhu, aged about 12 years and 9 years respectively. Sindhu is examined as P.W. 10; she admits before the Court that she is the daughter of deceased and Bindhu is her sister; P.W. 10 has specified that after hearing the screaming sound, she rushed to the house and seen the burning scene of her mother. At the time of the incident, she was playing in front of the house with other children and only after hearing screaming sound, she went inside the house, at that time, The neighbours, who were gathered, had broke open the door and tried to extinguish the fire; she does not know as to who is responsible for the death of her mother Geetha.

In the cross-examination by the PP, she has admitted that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased since deceased was not doing any work; after the quarrel between the accused and the deceased, the deceased entered the bedroom and closed the door; the accused poured kerosene through the slit of the door and set the accused ablaze; she has clearly admitted that deceased was a lady of arrogant nature and she did not know Kannada Language; she was not even knowing as to how the Kannada language should be spoken or written.

From the aforementioned evidence of P.W. 10, it is amply clear that the prosecution has not come up with the true story before the Court. The couple had got two children namely Sindhu and Bindhu; the daughter of the deceased has clearly admitted that the deceased did not know Kannada language at all and she did not even know how to speak Kannada language and how to write Kannada language. Curiously, the dying declaration recorded as per Ex. P-14 by the Police (P.W. 13) is in Kannada language. P.W. 13 has also admitted before the Court that the deceased has deposed in Kannada language; even otherwise, we do not find any endorsement on Ex. P-14 that the deceased had spoken in Tamil or Telugu language and the same is translated to Kannada language; thus, it is probable that the Police might have created dying declaration as per Ex. P-14 to support the case of prosecution. Though doctor P.W. 15 was in-charge of the burn ward and though he was working at 10.30 p.m. at which time the dying declaration was allegedly written, the Police did not venture to take the fitness certificate from P.W. 15, on the other hand, they contacted the doctor P.W. 19, whose working hours were upto 8.00 p.m.; this creates shadow of doubt in the mind of the Court inasmuch as the prosecution has not placed the records in straightforward manner.

It is also relevant to note that the death intimation was sent to the Police Station at 8.50 p.m. and the same reached the Police Station at 9.00 p.m., which means the death has occurred within about 20 minutes from the time of recording the dying declaration; curiously, the Inspector of Police (P.W. 13), who allegedly recorded the dying declaration has not deposed about the timings of recording of the dying declaration. However, the endorsement made by the doctor (P.W. 19) at the top of the page was at 8.30 p.m. which means the dying declaration must have been recorded only after 8.30 p.m. inasmuch as the endorsement of the doctor as found on the top of the page. Thus, it is clear that the deceased must have died even before completion of the dying declaration. The Court can take judicial notice of fact that the dying declaration, which runs to two pages, could not have been written within a span of ten minutes that too based on the declaration of the person who died immediately; the dying declaration is supposed to be recorded in the very words uttered by the declarant/victim. Since the victim was not knowing Kannada language, the story as put forth by the prosecution that the victim has given dying declaration in Kannada language cannot be believed.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any good ground to disagree with the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court. The view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.