Case Note & Summary
The criminal appeal was filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.03.2012 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in S.C. No.321/2009. The trial court convicted the appellants (accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000 each, in default further imprisonment for five years. The prosecution case was that Smt. Meera, the victim, was married to accused No.1 in 2000. After about four years of marriage, the accused persons began ill-treating and harassing her on the grounds that she did not perform household work properly and did not take care of the children. They abused her in filthy language and assaulted her. Despite the ill-treatment, the deceased Meera tolerated the harassment hoping that the accused would improve. On 07.03.2009, at around 3.00 p.m., a quarrel occurred when the children were quarrelling, and accused No.1 abused and assaulted her. Frustrated, Meera decided to commit suicide by pouring kerosene. At that time, accused No.1 and his sister-in-law, accused No.5, allegedly came and poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. She cried for help, neighbours came and extinguished the fire, and she was shifted to the hospital. She survived for some time and gave two dying declarations—one recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate and another by the police. She died on 08.03.2009 at 8.00 a.m. due to burn injuries. The police filed a charge sheet against five accused persons under Sections 143, 147, 498A, 504, 506, 323, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. During trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked several exhibits. The accused examined four defence witnesses. The trial court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 for murder and acquitted the remaining accused. In appeal, the appellants contended that the entire case rested on unreliable dying declarations which were inconsistent; the witnesses were interested relatives; and the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence. The respondent supported the conviction arguing that the two dying declarations clearly implicated the appellants and that the consistent evidence of ill-treatment and cruelty justified the conviction. The High Court framed two points for consideration: whether the prosecution proved the guilt under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court committed any error in appreciating the evidence. The judgment text provided does not include the final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt; Whether the trial Court committed any serious legal or factual error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, leading to erroneous conviction and sentence
