Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an appeal by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.09.2015 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, sitting at Chintamani, in S.C.No.48/2014, whereby the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the accused Narasimhamurthy @ Murthy and the deceased Munirathnamma @ Rathnamma had been in a live-in relationship for about five years, with the deceased being his kept mistress. They resided in a rented house belonging to one R. Manjunatha in Kadiripalya, Shidlaghatta, for about five months, during which they frequently quarrelled. On the night of 24.12.2013, around 10.30 p.m., while the deceased was sleeping, the accused picked a quarrel, abused her alleging infidelity, poured kerosene from a can, set her ablaze, and fled. She sustained severe burn injuries and was admitted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, where she succumbed to the injuries on 29.12.2013. The criminal law was set into motion by a complaint (Ex.P1) filed by her brother (PW1), leading to registration of a case under Section 307 IPC. Upon her death, Section 302 IPC was added. Investigation included spot mahazar, inquest, and postmortem, with the autopsy report (Ex.P9) confirming burn injuries. Two dying declarations were recorded: one by the police (Ex.P5) and another by the Taluk Executive Magistrate (PW15) as Ex.P10. After completing investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. During trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses (PWs 1 to 15) and marked 18 exhibits and 3 material objects. The accused pleaded not guilty and did not lead any defence evidence except marking a part of the statement of Seethamma (mother of deceased) as Ex.D1. The trial court, upon appreciation of evidence, found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It noted inconsistencies between the two dying declarations and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses. The landlord (PW2) and other witnesses did not convincingly establish the accused’s presence at the scene or his involvement. One key witness (PW11) turned hostile. Consequently, the trial court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C., contending that the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence. The learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 10, and 14, along with the dying declarations, was consistent, cogent, and trustworthy, and that the trial court erred in disregarding it. The appeal sought re-appreciation of evidence to prevent miscarriage of justice. The High Court’s judgment, as per the available text, narrates the prosecution case, the trial court’s reasoning, and the State’s arguments, but the final decision of the High Court is not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Admissibility and Corroboration - Section 32, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The trial court acquitted the accused after finding that the two dying declarations (Ex.P5 and Ex.P10) were inconsistent and not corroborated by independent evidence. The deceased’s statement and dying declaration raised doubts about the accused’s presence at the scene. Thus, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused (Paras 9-10). B) Criminal Law - Murder - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The prosecution’s case that the accused poured kerosene and set the deceased ablaze was not proved. The landlord PW2’s evidence did not establish the accused’s role, and PW11 turned hostile. The trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 9-12). C) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - Interference with Trial Court’s Findings - Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The State appealed seeking reversal of acquittal, arguing that the trial court overlooked consistent evidence of witnesses and dying declarations. The High Court was called upon to re-appreciate the evidence to prevent miscarriage of justice (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for murder was justified in light of the evidence, particularly two dying declarations and witnesses?
Law Points
- dying declaration must be corroborated
- benefit of doubt accrues to accused
- hostile witness evidence cannot be solely relied upon
- acquittal appeal requires re-appreciation of evidence to prevent miscarriage of justice
