LexANJANAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 14 S.C.R. 803 ANJANAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 1223 of 2008) NOVEMBER 12, 2013 [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss.498A, 302 and 304 Part fl - Married woman died in hospital due to burn injuries - C Deceased gave dying declaration implicating husband- appellant to police official, PW5, which was endorsed by the attending doctor, PW4 - Appellant charge-sheeted - But acquitted by trial court- Conviction of appellant by High Court u/s. 304-11 /PC - Justification - Held: Evidence of PW-4 D establishes to the hilt that deceased was in a fit mental condition to make statement in which she implicated the appellant - PW4 stated that he made endorsement on the deceased's statement recorded by PW-5 - PW-5 corroborated PW-4 - Both these witnesses were truthful and E the trial court erred in rejecting their evidence - There was motive too - Appellant wanted the property standing in the name of the deceased to be transferred to his name, which the deceased was not prepared to do - Besides, the conduct of appellant speaks volumes - He was absconding and could be arrested only much later - Moreover, in his statement recorded u/s.313 CrPC he did not explain how the deceased received burn injuries - His silence on this aspect gives rise F to an adverse inference against him - It forms a link in the chain qf circumstances which point to his guilt - When there G is overwhelming evidence on record to establish that kerosene was poured on deceased and she was set on fire, it is abswrd to argue that the prosecution case should be disbelieved because it is not mentioned ,in certain documents 803 H 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 14 S.C.R. A that kerosene smell was emanating from her body - Further, there was no delay in recording the FIR - Similarly, there was no unexplained delay in forwarding FIR to the Magistrate - High Court perfectly justified in interfering with the trial court's order - Acquittal of appellant was wrongly recorded - Dowry B Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss. 3 and 6. Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32 - Dying declaration - Appreciation of- Certification by doctor- If necessary- Held: Certification by the doctor about the fitness of the declarant's mind is a rule of caution - Once the doctor who examined the C deceased, himself states that the deceased was in a position to make a statement and that she was conscious, absence of his endorsement on the statement to that effect is of no consequence. D Evidence - Witness - Witness protection - Held: The E reasons why witnesses so frequently turn hostile need to be ascertained - There is no witness protection plan in place - Unless the witnesses are protected the rise in unmerited acquittals cannot be checked. Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Held: If the view taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible view, it is not to be disturbed - If two views are possible and if the view taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible view, then the appellate court should not disturb it just because it feels that another F view of the matter is possible - However, an order of acquittal will have to be disturbed if it is perverse - On facts, the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal as it was perverse. G The prosecution case was that the appellant poured kerosene on his wife and set her on her fire thereby causing her burn injuries which subsequently led to her death at the hospital. The deceased gave dying declaration implicating the appellant to a police official, H PWS, which was endorsed by the attending doctor, PW4. ANJANAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 805 The appellant was charged for offences under Sections A 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC. Apart from the police witnesses and the doctor, the prosecution examined PW- 2 and PW-3, mother and father of the deceased. The parents of the deceased however turned hostile in the B court. The trial court acquitted the appellant inter a/ia holding that the dying declaration could not be relied upon because the doctor had not made any endorsement as to whether the deceased was in a fit C condition to make a statement. The trial court held that the deceased was given sedatives, therefore, in all probability she was not in a fit condition to make a dying declaration; and it is doubtful whether the doctor was p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.