- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1083/2019 (C) BETWEEN: SRI MANJU S/O MAHADEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC:LABOURER, R/AT KEREHALLI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJNAGAR TALUK- 571313. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VENKATESH P DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE STATION CHAMARAJNAGAR REPT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE -560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 03.12.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA (SITTING AT KOLLEGALA) IN S.C.NO.106/2014 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A) AND 302 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, accused in S.C.No.106/2014 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, (sitting at Kollegala) has preferred this appeal. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). For the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, trial Court has sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- and for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, he is sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- with default sentence. 3. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. 4. The charge against the accused was that he subjected his wife-Bhuvaneshwari alias Rani to physical and mental cruelty demanding her to get money from her parents and on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 03.09.2014 at 6.30 p.m. at his house, he picked up quarrel with her with the same demand and set her ablaze by pouring kerosene on her. She succumbed to the injuries on 06.09.2014 at 6.30 p.m. in K.R.Hospital, Mysuru. 5. Heard both side. Submissions of Sri.Venkatesh P.Dalwai, learned counsel for appellant: 6(i). The case is based on dying declaration originally made by the victim before PW.17. The recording of dying declaration is shrouded with lot of suspicion. PW.18 was said to be the scribe of dying declaration/Ex.P13. But his endorsement and signature to that effect is not forthcoming in Ex.P13. No medical records were produced to show that the victim was in a fit state to give such statement. Except that other independent witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 4 and 5 did not support the prosecution case. PWs.9, 12 and 13 are the parents and sister and PW.11 was the aunt of the victim. Their evidence is full of improvements, inconsistencies and embellishments. Their evidence clearly shows that they have falsely implicated the accused. The other witness PW.14 has not supported the prosecution case. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 (ii) The photographs found in the charge sheet show that at the scene of offence surrounding articles were not burnt. That creates doubt about the theory of accused splashing kerosene and setting the victim ablaze. Evidence of PWs.9, 11 to 13 shows that victim was insisting the accused to shift to Hassan and when he rejected, she was upset with that. That probabilises the defence of the accused that she has committed suicide. As the prosecution did not discharge its initial burden of proving that the burns were homicidal one, the burden did not shift to accused to prove that burns were suicidal. (iii) Trial Court without proper appreciation of evidence and law regarding dying declaration has wrongly convicted the accused. The Judgment and order are liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, he relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Purshottam Chopra and anr Vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi)1. Submissions of Sri.Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II: 7(i). The accused does not dispute that victim suffered burn injuries at his house at 6.30 p.m. He does not try to shift the victim to the hospital nor gives the information to the police 1 (2020) 11 SCC 489 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 or her parents. Such conduct of the accused goes against his defence that the burns were suicidal one. Eyewitnesses PWs.1, 4, 5 and 14 were neighbours of the accused himself, though they have not supported the prosecution case, still their evidence shows that on listening to the commotion they went to the house of the accused, found the victim on flames, doused the fire and shifted her to the hospital. The evidence of PW.17/ASI, PW.18/PC and PW.16/the doctor who has certified the condition of the victim while recording her statement shows that she was fit to give statement. PW.18 failed to endorse that PW.17 was the scribe of Ex.P13 and itself does not demolish the veracity of evidence regarding Ex.P13. It is not disputed that victim was admitted in K.R.Hospital on that day and PW.16 had treated her. (ii). In the cross examinations of PWs.16 to 18 it was not elicited that victim was not in a position to give statement. She died on 06.09.2014 i.e. after two days of giving her statement. Therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.16 to 18, more particularly PW.16/the doctor. Ex.P13 was further corroborated by the evidence of PWs.9, 12 and 13, the parents and sister of the victim. It is not disputed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 that after getting the information of the admission of the victim in the hospital, they visited the hospital and stayed with her till her death. Under such circumstances victim narrating the cause of burns to them is not unnatural. There may be some exaggerations or lacing of facts in their evidence, but that itself does not demolish the core of the case. That by such evidence prosecution had discharged its initial burden of proving the fact that the victim suffered homicidal burns at the hands of the accused. Then the burden shifted to the accused to explain how and why she suffered such burns. If burns were suicidal, why he did not accompany her to the hospital was not explained. He failed to rebut the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short `Evidence Act'). In the light of such evidence, non-examination of CW.27/Investigating Officer was not fatal. Therefore the impugned judgment and order of the trial court does not warrant interference of this Court. 8. On considering the submissions of both side and on examination of materials on record, the question that arises for consideration is "Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable?" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 Analysis: 9. Some of the undisputed facts of the case are that the accused and victim-Bhuvaneshwari alias Rani got married on 29.04.2007 at Dharmastala. The couple were blessed with one son. It is also not disputed that victim's parental place was Hassan. Initially the accused at the time of marriage was working in Hassan and then along with the victim he shifted to his native place at Kerehalli Village in Chamarajanagar District. Victim suffered burn injuries at the house of the accused on 03.09.2014 at 6.30 p.m. PW.1 and others shifted her in an autorickshaw upto Heggodi cross. On calling the ambulance that came at Heggodi cross she was taken to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru in that ambulance. When she was under treatment in the said hospital, she succumbed to the injuries on 06.09.2014 at 6.30 p.m. 10. According to the prosecution, the accused was pestering the victim to get money from her parents and he used to come home drunk and beat her demanding money. It is further case of the prosecution that in that regard her parents had come to Kerehalli and advised him and at 6.30 p.m. on the day of the incident, accused picked up quarrel with the victim - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 demanding money, assaulted her and when she questioned, he poured kerosene on her, set her ablaze and ran away. When she screamed PWs.1, 4, 5 and one Rajamma came to the scene of offence and PW.1 and PW.4 shifted her to K.R.Hospital, where she died. 11. To prove the charges, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 20 and Exs.P1 to P15 and MOs.1 to 3 were marked. After recording of the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused did not lead any defence evidence. 12. The case of the prosecution was based on the following evidence/circumstances: (i) Evidence of eye witnesses PWs.1, 4 and 5. (ii) Dying declaration/Ex.P13 said to be made before PW.17. (iii) Dying declaration made before PWs.9, 11 to 13 and their evidence regarding motive. (iv) Evidence of official witnesses. 13. It is the case of the prosecution that on Chamarajanagar Rural Police getting medico legal intimation from K.R.Hospital, Senior Officer of PW.17 asked him to visit - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 K.R.Hospital and record the statement of the victim. Accordingly, he visited the hospital and enquired the doctor/PW.16 about the condition of the patient and recorded her statement as per Ex.P13 and same was scribed by PW.18/ Police Constable of Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station. PW.16/Professor and Head of the Department of Plastic Surgery in K.R.Hospital deposed that on 04.09.2014 at 8.00 a.m. the victim was admitted to K.R.Hospital with burn injuries and on the same day at 12 noon, the ASI gave a requisition to certify about the fitness of the victim to give statement and he issued certificate as per Ex.P12. He also speaks about PW.17 recording the statement/Ex.P13 and he attesting statement of the victim as per Ex.P13(a). In his cross examination, it is only suggested that in Ex.P13 he has not mentioned the time of receiving the requisition about he not furnishing the medico legal case sheet of the victim to the police and not mentioning in Exs.P12 and P13 about her BP, pulse rate, temperature and dehydration. But nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence that such statement was recorded in his presence and the victim was in a position to give statement. If Investigating Officer has not collected the case sheet, that may be an omission on his part. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 But that does not dent the evidence of PW.16 as nothing was elicited to show that in any way he was a partisan witness. The fact of he giving treatment to her was also not disputed in his cross examination. 14. It is true that as per the evidence of PW.17 and PW.18, PW.18 is the scribe of the statement/Ex.P13 and there is no endorsement on Ex.P13 to that effect. Whether that is a material lapse is the question. PW.17 who recorded the statement, deposed that on 04.09.2014 he visited the hospital at 11.30 a.m. and enquired with PW.16 whether the victim was in a position to give statement and on PW.16 confirming her fitness, he recorded the statement. He has further deposed that the victim revealed to him in the statement that accused on 03.09.2014 at 6.30 p.m. came home drunk, picked up quarrel with her demanding money, poured kerosene on her, lit the match stick and set her on fire. He further stated that the victim revealed to him that her neighbours Rajamma, PWs.1, 4 and 5 took her in an autorickshaw and when they reached Heggodi cross, ambulance came, she was shifted to K.R.Hospital in that ambulance and she requested to take action against accused. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 15. PW.10/auto driver from Kerehalli Village though did not support the case of prosecution about he going to the scene of offence on learning about accused causing the burns, he supported the prosecution version that on villagers calling him he went to the scene of offence and found the victim with burns and took her upto Heggodi cross in his autorickshaw and then she was shifted in ambulance. Similarly PW.1 also speaks about he finding the victim with burns in the house of the accused when aunt of the accused raised alarm, he coming to the house of the accused, found victim screaming with burn injuries and shifting her in an autorickshaw. 16. PWs.4 and 5/the neighbours of the accused though pleaded their ignorance about the cause of the burns, they admitted that she died due to the burn injuries. Such evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5 corroborated the statement in Ex.P13 about the victim being found with burn injuries and shifting her to certain distance in autorickshaw and from there to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru in an ambulance. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ex.P13 is concocted by PW.17. The victim's statement in Ex.P13 that accused was aware of the burns was sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PWs.9, 12 and 13/parents and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 sister of victim and PW.11/aunt of the victim. As already noted the fact of PWs.9 and 11 to 13 visiting the hospital and learning about the victim's admission in K.R.Hospital was not in dispute. In their cross examination, their visit to the said hospital was not disputed. They more particularly PW.9 and PW.13 have deposed that on learning about the incident telephonically regarding admission of the victim in K.R.Hospital they came to the hospital. 17. PW.12 has deposed that, by the time they came to the hospital police had already recorded the victim's statement. Said statement was not denied in his cross examination. The aforesaid witnesses namely PWs.9, 11 to 13 have deposed that after marriage for some time the accused looked after the victim well and thereafter he started harassing her demanding to get money from her parents. They have further deposed that the parents of the victim PWs.9 and 12 had advised the accused and they had advised the victim also to adjust. They had also deposed that within few days after such conciliation, they heard about victim suffering burn injuries, visited the hospital and when they enquired, she revealed that accused on that day quarrelled with her and set her ablaze. It is no doubt - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 true that there was an attempt on their part to exaggerate and to make improvements. But such conduct on their part does not itself make their evidence doubtful regarding the core case of the prosecution namely the accused being the author of the burns. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 31 and 32 of the judgment in Bakshish Singh’s v. State of Punjab2 while considering whether minor inconsistencies or discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses demolish the entire prosecution story held as follows: "31. This Court in several cases observed that minor inconsistent versions/discrepancies do not necessarily demolish the entire prosecution story, if it is otherwise found to be creditworthy. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police this Court after scrutinising several earlier judgments relied upon the observations in Narayan Chetanram Chaudharu v. State of Maharashtra to the following effect: (Sampath Kumar case, SCC p.130, para 21) "21. … '42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different 2 (2013) 12 SCC 187 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observations differ from person to person.' (Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary case, SCC p.483, para 42)" 32. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra this Court observed as follows: (SCC p.671, para 30) "30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must from an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (vide State v. Saravanan.)" (Emphasis supplied) 19. So far as the embellishments in the statement of the witnesses in para 33 of the judgment it was held as follows: "33. The embellishments in the statements of Narinder Banwait (PW 19) referred to above, in our view do not constitute such contradictions which destroy the core of the prosecution case as this Court in Raj Kumar - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 Singh v. State of Rajasthan has observed as under: (SCC p.740, para 43) "43. …. It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very particular in their exercise of appreciating evidence. The approach to be adopted is, if the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the same appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may become necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a whole, and evaluate them separately, to determine whether the same are completely against the nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses, and whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation, rendering it unworthy of belief." (Emphasis supplied) 20. So far as the exaggeration and improvements in the evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment in Leela Ram v. State of Haryana3 held as follows: “12. It is indeed necessary to note that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishment — sometimes there 3 (1999) 9 SCC 525 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety they may give a slightly exaggerated account. The court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same.” (Emphasis supplied) 21. The above judgment clearly shows that the relatives of the victim in their anxiety to see that the accused is convicted are likely to lace the facts and circumstances, make improvements and exaggerate their versions which is not uncommon. If that itself does not impeach their evidence regarding the core case, that has to be accepted. 22. So far as the fitness of the victim to give statement as per Ex.P13 or statements before PWs.16, 17 and 18 she was admitted to the hospital on 04.09.2014 at 8 a.m. and she died on 06.09.2014 at 6.30 p.m. PW.16/doctor has certified her fitness at the time of recording her statement/Ex.P13 and thereafter she survived for two days. PW.16 was in no way an interested witness. Giving credence to the evidence of the doctors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 of North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs Gourabai and others4 held that a doctor will not take signature on a piece of paper mentioning something which is not correct. Nothing was attributed to PW.16 in his cross examination to show that he is a partisan witness. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in accepting the evidence of PW.16 and the prosecution case that while giving the statement-Ex.P13, the victim was in a fit condition to give statement. 23. By such evidence, the prosecution discharged its initial burden of proving the fact that the incident took place in the house of the accused when the victim and accused both were together and the aforesaid evidence leads to the inference that the accused was the author of the burns. Under such circumstances, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was for the accused to explain, how the victim got such burns and if at all it was suicidal, what he was doing at that time, why he did not accompany the victim to the hospital and why he fled away. Such facts show his guilt in absconding and that becomes an additional link in thread of circumstances. It is no doubt true that the Investigating Officer has stated that the 4 (2009)15 SCC 165 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 accused surrendered before the police on 06.09.2014 in the police station. If the accused was not guilty, then instead of surrendering before the police, he should have accompanied the victim to the hospital and he should have informed the parents of the victim about the incident. PWs.1, 4, 5 and 14 turning hostile does not dent the case of prosecution. As against that evidence on record shows that they were neighbours of the accused. Therefore, their chance of speaking against the accused to see that his conviction is slim. 24. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs State of Maharashtra5 has held that when offence is committed in secrecy inside a house, the burden of prosecution to prove the charge is lighter as compared to other offences. It is further held that in such cases, there is corresponding burden on the other inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how crime was committed. They cannot get away by keeping quiet on the premise that prosecution must discharge its burden of proving the case. It was further held that if accused fails to offer any cogent explanation or an explanation is untrue, then the same 5 (2006) 10 SCC 681 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 can be treated as an additional link in the chain of circumstances against the accused to make the same complete. 25. In the present case also, the accused though made an attempt in the cross examination of the relatives of the victim to say that the victim was insisting for setting up a house in Hassan and his rejection of such request/demand led to the victim committing suicide, he does not give such explanation in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Moreover, by the time the offence took place, they were already married for 7 years. If the victim was so upset due to rejection of her request, for all those 7 years she would not have waited for 7 years to take such extreme step. The trial Court on holistic appreciation of the evidence on record accepted the dying declaration/Ex.P13 and the dying declaration of the victim made before her parents and sister. 26. In Purshottam Chopra’s case referred to supra, relied upon by learned counsel for appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the law relating to dying declaration as follows: "21. For what has been noticed hereinabove, some of the principles relating to recording of dying declaration and its - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 admissibility and reliability could be usefully summed up as under: 21.1. A dying declaration could be the sole basis of conviction even without corroboration, if it inspires confidence of the court. 21.2. The court should be satisfied that the declarant was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement; and that it was a voluntary statement, which was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. 21.3. Where a dying declaration is suspicious or is suffering from any infirmity such as want of fit state of mind of the declarant or of like nature, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. 21.4. When the eyewitnesses affirm that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the statement, the medical opinion cannot prevail. 21.5. The law does not provide as to who could record dying declaration nor there is any prescribed format or procedure for the same but the person recording dying declaration must be satisfied that the maker is in a fit state of mind and is capable of making the statement. 21.6. Although presence of a Magistrate is not absolutely necessary for recording of a dying declaration but to ensure authenticity and credibility, it is expected that a Magistrate be requested to record such dying declaration and/or attestation be obtained from other persons present at the time of recording the dying declaration. 21.7. As regards a burns case, the percentage and degree of burns would not, by itself, be decisive of the credibility of dying declaration; and the decisive factor would be the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 quality of evidence about the fit and conscious state of the declarant to make the statement. 21.8. If after careful scrutiny, the court finds the statement placed as dying declaration to be voluntary and also finds it coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in recording conviction on its basis even without corroboration. (Emphasis supplied) 27. Reading of the aforesaid Judgment shows that even in that judgment it was held that dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. It was held that if eyewitnesses state that the victim was not in a fit and conscious state to make statement, medical opinion would not prevail. But in this case, the evidence of doctor and PWs.1, 4 and 5 show that even on suffering the burns the victim was conscious and she was fit to give statement. On overall appreciation of the evidence, trial Court was satisfied about the victim giving the statement as per Ex.P13. On re-appreciation of material on record, it cannot be said that the evaluation of the evidence or the conclusions reached by the trial Court are in any way erroneous or illegal. There are no grounds warranting interference of this Court. Hence, the following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35424-DB CRL.A No.1083/2019 Appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri.Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned counsel for appellant appointed by HCLSC is placed on record. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17