BEERE GOWDA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 28-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 9 S.C.R. 211 
BEERE GOWDA 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1466 of 2005) 
JULY 28, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K; PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
s.302 - Father and step mother causing death of 2Yz c 
years old daughter from the first wife, by administering her 
nitric and sulphuric acids - Acquittal by trial court of both -
Acquittal of step mother affirmed by High Court - But father 
of deceased convicted u/s 302 - HELD: It is undoubtedly true 
that if two views are possible and the trial court has recorded 
0 
an acquittal, interference by High Court should be restricted 
- However, in case High Court finds that the view taken by 
trial court was not based on the evidence, it would defeat the 
ends of justice if the order was not set aside - The present 
case falls under the category where High Court was fully 
justified in interfering in the matter - The view taken by trial 
E 
court was not justified to say the least - There is one strong 
circumstance which has not been noticed by either of the 
courts below that nitric and sulphuric acids would not be of any 
domestic use and would not be available as a household 
article - It has come in evidence that the acids had been 
F 
obtained from PW. 17 and after the two acids had been mixed 
the concoction was put into the mouth of the child - High 
Court's observation that acid had been forcibly put into the 
mouth is based on the medical evidence as injuries were 
found all O~'er the body including the mouth, arms and the 
G 
chest which clearly showed that the child tried to save herself 
and fought back when the acid was being administered - As 
regards the parity claimed by the convict vis-a-vis the co-
211 
H 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A accused, matter has been dealt with by High Court and it has 
b~en observed that though there appeared to be some 
suspicion, but there is no concrete evidence of abetment of 
the murder by her as she had come to the house after the 
incident - Appeal dismissed. 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1466 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and order dated 26.11.2004 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 
c 723 of 1999. 
D 
Ajit Kumar Panda, (A.C.) for the Appellant. 
Ramesh Kumar Mishra, K. Joshi, Ramesh S. Jadhav and 
Vikrant Yadav (for Sanjay R. Hegde) for the Respondent. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
This appeal at the instance of the accused arises out of 
E the following facts: 
Pallavi, aged two and half years, was the daughter of the 
appellant Beere Gowda and his first wife Jayanthi Gowda. The 
marriage between the appellant and Jayanthi had taken place 
F about five or six years earlier. It appears that at the time of the 
marriage Jayanthi was pregnant but after some time the two 
fell out and the appellant left her in her parents' home promising 
to take her back after performing the marriage of his sister. A 
few days later however he performed a marriage with lndramma 
G co-accused, since acquitted. After the marriage of the appellant 
and lndramma the relations between the appellant and Jayanthi 
became unpleasant and Jayanthi was often assaulted and was 
made to do all the household chores and was also compelled 
to undergo a Family Planning Operation at Kalsapura P.H.C., 
H 
BEERE GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
213 
as the appellant apparently did not want to have any child from 
A 
her. It is the case of the prosecution that as Pallavi was an 
unwanted child, the two accused, thought it fit to get rid of her 
so that she could not claim any share in her father's property. 
The appellant accordingly obtained nitric & sulphuric acid from 
PW.16 Ranganatha-Chari, a goldsmith, and it is further the 
B 
prosecution case that this was administered to Pallavi on 22nd 
September 1996 which ultimately led to her death. An FIR was 
accordingly lodged by Jayanthi PW.1 in which the above facts 
were given in detail. The appellant who had in the meanwhile, 
absconded was arrested on 26th September 1996 and on his c 
statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act a bottle 
containing a mixture of the two acids was found from the 
kitchen of his home. On the completion of the investigation the 
appellant and lndramma were charged for offences punishable 
under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC 
0 
and as they denied all allegations they were brought to trial. 
The Sessions Judge vide his judg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.