LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

GOPAL versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 19-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 5 S.C.R. 501 
GO PAL 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2006) 
APRIL 19, 2011 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.) 
A 
8 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Conviction under-Allegation 
that accused-husband poured kerosene on the body of his 
wife and set her on fire - Dying declaration recorded by police 
C 
officer and endorsed by the doctor to the effect that victim was 
in a fit mental condition to depose before the police -
Conviction by courts below, on the basis of dying declaration 
- Justification of- Held: Justified - The dying declaration was 
rightly 1made the sole basis for the conviction of accused -
D 
Thero/was no explanation by the accused anywhere as to how 
the presence of kerosene was found on the inner and outer 
garments of his wife - FSL Report endorsed the said fact - It 
was not the defence of the accused that the death was suicidal 
or accidental - The circumstances clinched the proof that it 
E 
was the accused alone who committed this offence - Evidence 
- Dying declaration. 
The prosecution case was that the appellant poured 
kerosene on the body of his wife and set her on fire. The 
victim was rushed to hospital. The doctor, PW-5 intimated 
the police station. The police officer, PW-13 recorded the 
statement of the victim. After few days, the victim 
succumbed to the burn injuries. The trial court convicted 
F 
the appellant under Section 302 ~PC. The High Court 
upheld the same. The instant appeal was filed challenging .. G 
the conviction. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
501 
H 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. The findings of the trial court as well as of 
the High Court that the dying declaration can be made 
the sole basis for the conviction of accused is a correct 
inference. There was no explanation by the accused 
anywhere as to how the presence of kerosene was found 
B on the brassiere, saree and peti-coat of the unfortunate 
lady. The FSL Report endorsed this fact. It w~s not the 
defence of the accused that the death was suicidal or 
accidental. There was nothing on record even to 
entertain such doubt. The presence of kerosene residue 
c on the inner and outer garments provided strong 
corroboration of the version in the dying declaration. The 
witnesses, who carried the deceased to the hospital, 
turned hostile during their examinations but that may not 
be an escape route for the accused because the man 
D may lie but the circumstances do not. The circumstances 
in this case clinches the proof that it is the accused and 
accused alone who committed this offence. The 
investigating officer did not make any attempt to get 
recorded the second dying declaration of the deceased 
by a Magistrate. It would have been better if the 
E ยท investigating officer had made an attempt to get recorded 
the second dying declaration of the victim by a 
Magistrate. But, the dying declaration recorded by PW-
13 and supported by PW-5 and the endorsement made 
by him to the effect that the victim was in a fit mental 
F condition to depose before the police convinces that the 
dying declaration itself was a good dying declaration and 
could have been acted upon. [Paras 3 to 6] [503-G-H; 504-
A-F] 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 29 of 2006. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2003 of the High 
Court of Karnataka (DB) in Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2000. 
H 
Ram Lal Roy for the Appellant. 
-
GOPAL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
503 
Gurudatta Ankolekar, Azeem Kalebudde, V.N. 
A 
Raghuparthy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SIRPURKAR, J. 1. The appellant - Gopal challenges his 
conviction under Section 302 l.P.C. in this appeal. The ยท B 
allegation against the appellant-accused are that on 
29.12.1998 at about 5 p.m., he poured kerosene on the body 
of his wife Mallavva and set her on fire. It has come in the 
evidence that Mallavva was immediately taken to the hospital 
by PW-8 Nagawa and PW-15 Sushila and she was treated by 
C 
PW-5 - Dr. Noor Ahmed. PW-5 is said to have intimated to the 
police station on which PW-13 PSI Ravi came there and 
recorded .her dying declaration. In that dying declaration, the 
deceased has clearly alleged that the accused used to drink 
liquor and quarrel with her. He also used to assault the o 
deceased in a drunken state. On 29.12.1998, accused had 
given Rs. 200/- to her for purchase of ration. He immediately 
took back Rs. 100 out of Rs. 200/- . She purchased the ratio

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