Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 901 (KAR)

Murali Alias Muralidhar v. State of Karnataka

2009-11-25

K.SREEDHAR RAO, RAVI MALIMATH

body2009
Judgment : The case of the prosecution discloses that one Smt. Akshatha (deceased) is the wife of accused. They were married about 12 years prior to the incident. The accused was addicted to alcohol and frequently inflicting physical cruelty of beating the deceased. In this regard there was an intervention of the elders in vain to advise the accused to desist from inflicting physical cruelty. 2. On 10-3-2004 at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning there was a quarrel. The accused started abusing the deceased. The accused doused the deceased with kerosene and lit fire. The deceased was brought to the hospital at about 10.15 a.m. by P.W.2-brother of the accused. H.C. –P.W. 20 recorded the statement of the deceased at Ex.P.29 and the same is registered as FIR-Ex. P.30. The T.E.M. has recorded dying declaration of the deceased at 8.30 p.m. The injured was shifted to Hospital at Bambolim-Goa. She was an inpatient for 30 days. P.W. 13-father of deceased got the injured discharged against the medical advise to his house. The injured was again treated at Manipal hospital and was in the hospital as inpatient till her death on 19-5-2004. 3. Post-mortem report discloses that death is on account of Septicemia as a result of burn injuries sustained. The accused is charged for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The charge under Sections 323 and 504 is redundant and unnecessary. The Trial Court on the basis of dying declaration, evidence of P.Ws. 13 and 14-parents of the deceased has convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC. The accused is in appeal. 4. On careful hearing of Sri Bahubali Dhanwade, Counsel for appellant and on perusal of the records we find that following circumstances would seriously dent veracity of the prosecution case: 1. The deceased was admitted to Civil hospital, Karwar immediately about half an hour of the incident. 2. The history in the M.L.C. Register discloses that burn injuries are accidental injuries. 3. Contents of Ex. D. 1-Certificate also discloses that injured was conscious when she was admitted and was brought by her brother in law to the hospital. 4. The deceased was admitted to Civil hospital, Karwar immediately about half an hour of the incident. 2. The history in the M.L.C. Register discloses that burn injuries are accidental injuries. 3. Contents of Ex. D. 1-Certificate also discloses that injured was conscious when she was admitted and was brought by her brother in law to the hospital. 4. In the dying declaration she has stated that at the time of admission to hospital she has given wrong history that the burn injuries are accidental because she was not conscious. This part of the evidence is incredible and contrary to Ex. D. 1 and also the evidence of D.W.1. 5. The contents of Ex. D.1 discloses that patient was fully conscious. D.W. 1-Doctor who admitted the injured and examined her has clearly stated that patient was conscious and Ex. D.1 was written after enquiry with the patient. D.W.1 comes to the hospital at 2.00 p.m. 6. P.Ws. 13 and 14 admits that there is bitterness between the accused and P.W. 13. The evidence discloses that P.W.13-father of the deceased had come to the hospital at about 2.00 p.m. The statement of deceased is belatedly recorded at 8.30 p.m. almost 10 hours after the incident. It is quite inferable that the deceased would have been influenced by P.W. 13 to give version implicating the accused in the complaint and as well in the dying declaration. 5. The prosecution has deliberately failed to produce the extract of the M.L.C. Register. Deceased had made reference to the entry in the M.L.C. Register, in FIR and in dying declaration. It was therefore just and necessary that prosecution should have placed extract of the MLC Register and to prove that contents recorded therein are incorrect. On the other hand the investigation had indulged in suppressing the material which was apparently helpful to the accused. 6. In view of the above said discrepant circumstances the case of the prosecution that accused caused death of the deceased by setting fire appears to be a doubtful version. The contradictory material helpful to the accused has not been properly explained by the prosecution for rejection of the said material. 7. In that view the order of conviction recorded is bad in law. The same is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Accused is directed to be set free forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other case.