SATISHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

S.C.No.5014/2017. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

#4. The charge against the accused was that he was addicted to alcohol and was quarrelling with his wife/Renuka whenever she asked money. On 19.03.2016 at 3:00 p.m., in his house, he picked up quarrel with the victim and agitated by that, when she poured kerosene on herself saying that she will commit suicide, the accused lit fire and caused burn injuries. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45752-DB CRL.A No.1276/2018 HC-KAR She died on 24.03.2016 at 2:00 p.m. in K.R. Hospital, Mysuru, due to burn injuries. Based on alleged dying declaration/Ex.P23 said to be recorded by PW.17/Chandregowda, Head Constable of K.R. Pet Rural Police Station, PW.15/Punith, Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police of K.R. Pet Rural Police Station registered information report/Ex.P24 initially the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. On receiving the death intimation, the case was converted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. On investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

#5. The Trial Court, on hearing the parties, framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. As the accused denied the charge, trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P1 to P25 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked. The accused, after his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., did not lead any defence evidence.

#6. The Trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted the accused solely based on the dying declaration/Ex.P23 and the evidence of the official witnesses. The accused has challenged the said - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45752-DB CRL.A No.1276/2018 HC-KAR judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the above appeal.

#7. Heard both side. Submissions of Sri Harish Kumar H.C., learned Counsel for the appellant: 8(i) There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case was solely based on circumstantial evidence. The motive for the commission of the offence was alcohol addiction of the accused and he quarrelling with his wife/victim whenever she asked money for the family’s maintenance. But the dying declaration/Ex.P23 does not whisper anything about the alleged addiction of the accused. Further, PWs.8, 9 and 12/father, daughter and younger brother of the victim respectively, did not support the prosecution version, both regarding motive as well as the overt acts of the accused. (ii) The prosecution’s own records show that the accused also had suffered burn injuries in the same incident and he had tried to put off the fire. When the victim was admitted into the hospital, history of accidental burns was given. The dying declaration was recorded after three days of the alleged incident. For those three days, the victim was under - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45752-DB CRL.A No.1276/2018 HC-KAR treatment. Evidence of PW.16/Dr. Lokesh itself shows that at the time of recording of the dying declaration, he was not present. The Trial Court committed grave error in relying on such dying declaration which was shrouded with suspicion. (iii) The Trial Court has wrongly applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paniben v. State of Gujarat1 to the facts of the present case. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record judiciously and apply the correct principles of law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

#9. In support of his submissions, he relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra2. Submissions of Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State:

#10. The death has taken place in the house of the accused. Death was unnatural one. If the injuries were accidental injuries, the accused should have taken the victim to the hospital and reported the matter to the police but has not explained why he has not done so. That goes to show that he ORDER 3 (2021) 6 SCC 213 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:45752-DB CRL.A No.1276/2018 HC-KAR The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed trial Court against appellant/accused is hereby set aside. Appellant/accused is acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The order of the trial Court with regard to disposal of the properties is maintained. Accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. Communicate copy of this order to the trial Court and concerned prison forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK,KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25