LexKASHI VISHWANATH versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 627
KASHI VISHWANATH
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2007)
JULY 3, 2013
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
A
B
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A and 302 rlw s. 34 - Ma"ied
woman died due to bum injuries - Deceased gave three dying C
declarations (Ex.P.12, Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.29) - Three accused
viz. the deceased's husband, his mother and another woman
('L? with whom the deceased's husband allegedly had illicit
relations - Trial court convicted appellant-husband and 'L' u/
ss.498A and 302 rlw 34 - High Court confirmed the conviction D
of appellant-husband but acquitted 'L' - Held: Comparison of
the three dying declarations show glaring contradictions - In
the first dying declaration (Ex.P.12) the deceased stated that
her husband instigated her to pour kerosene on her body,
therefore, she poured the kerosene on her body and her E
husband further poured kerosene on her and put on fire using
a match box - In the second dying declaration (Ex.P.22), the
deceased stated that her husband alongwith 'L' poured
kerosene on her body and put on fire by using match stick -
In the third dying declaration (Ex.P.29), the deceased stated F
that her husband poured kerosene on her and 'L' lit the match
stick and thrown upon her body - Apart from the contradictions,
credibility of the three dying declarations also doubtful - In the
first dying declaration (Ex.P.12), thumb impression of victim
has been shown whereas in the second dying declaration G
(Ex.P.22) given on the same day and the third dying
declaration (Ex.P.29) given on the next day, the victim stated
that she had not given her signatures since her hand was
completely burnt - Prosecution also failed to state as to why
627
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 10 S.C.R.
A
the three dying declarations were recorded in Kannada, if the
deceased was talking in Telugu - Not clear as to who amongst
the Tehisldar, PSI or SI or the Doctors who signed in Ex.P. 12,
Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.29 had knowledge of Telugu and translated
the same in Kannada for writing dying declarations in those
B
exhibits -Doubt as to truthfulness of the contents of the dying
declarations as possibility of the deceased being influenced
by somebody in making the dying declarations not ruled out
- Prosecution did not establish its case beyond reasonable
doubt - Hence, conviction of appellant set aside.
c
The wife of appellant died due to burn injuries. The
deceased gave three dying declarations (Ex.P.12, Ex.P.22
and Ex.P.29). The case of the prosecution was that the
appellant had illicit intimacy with another lady 'L' on
account of which he ill-treated and harassed his wife.
D There were in all three accused ·the appellant, his mother
and 'L'. While PW-10, Tahsildar recorded dying
declaration Ex.P.12, the second dying declaration Ex.P.22
was recorded by PW23, the PSI. The said two dying
declarations were recorded on the date of the incident.
E The third dying declaration· Ex.P.29 was recorded by the
Police the next day in the presence of PW-25. The trial
court convicted the appellant and 'L' under Sections 498-
A and 302 read with 34 IPC. The High Court confirmed
the conviction of the appellant but acquitted 'L'.
F
In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that
the prosecution absolutely failed to establish any of the
charges, much less, the charge under Section 302 IPC in
view of the multiple dying declarations brought on record
G which were contrary to each other. The appellant also
raised doubt relating to contents of Ex.P.12, Ex.P.22 ·and
Ex.P.29, the three dying declarations which were
originally recorded in Kannada contending tha.t the
deceased had no knowledge of Kannada language and
H could speak only Telugu.
KASHI VISHWANATH v STATE OF KARNATAKA
629
Allowing the appeal, the Court
A
HELD: 1. A comparison of the three dying
declarations (Ex.P.12, Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.29) shows certain
glaring contradictions. In the first dying declaration
(Ex.P.12), she (deceased) stated that her husband
B
instigated her to pour kerosene on her body, therefore,
she poured the kerosene on her body and her husband
further poured kerosene on her and put on fire using a
match box. In the second dying declaration (Ex.P.22), she
(deceased) stated that her husband along with 'L' poured c
kerosene on her body and put on fire by using match
stick. In the third dying declaration (Ex.P.29), she
(deceased) stExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.