MAHADEVAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 07-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
39
MAHADEVAPPA
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1261 of 2008)
JANUARY 07, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A r/w s.302 – Dowry death – Death
by burn injuries – Prosecution case was that the appellant-husband
poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire which resulted in
her death – Trial court held that prosecution was not able to prove
the charge of demand of dowry against the appellant and also that
the deceased suffered homicidal death and ordered his acquittal –
High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the
appellant under ss.498A and 302 – Appeal against conviction –
Held: The evidence of the four prosecution witnesses clearly proved
that the appellant was addicted to consuming liquor – He used to
demand money from the deceased and her parents quite often and
also at times used to ill-treat and assault the deceased – There was
no reason to discard the evidence of the parents of the deceased
who were the most natural and material witnesses to speak on such
issues – In such circumstances, the daughter - a newly married girl
would always like to first disclose her domestic problems to her
mother and father and then to her close relatives because they have
access to her and are always helpful in solving her problems – The
acts and the behavior of the appellant (husband)  towards his wife
soon after their marriage which eventually culminated in her death
within seven years from the date of their marriage squarely fell
within the meaning of s.498-A Explanations (a) and (b) of IPC –
Further, it was a case of homicidal death and not a case of accidental
death – Appellant was the only person present at the time of incident
in the house with the deceased –  The explanation by the appellant
that the deceased’s sari accidentally caught fire when she was boiling
the water on the oven was not convincing – In the absence of any
plausible explanation given by the appellant and the circumstances,
the manner in which the incident occurred and material seized from
the room i.e. kerosene oil bottle, it was proved beyond reasonable
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 39
39
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
doubt that the appellant was responsible for causing death of the
deceased – Evidence of four prosecution witnesses fully proved the
case of the prosecution – Interference with the order of conviction
not called for – Crime against women.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of the evidence of the four prosecution
witnesses clearly proved that firstly the appellant was addicted
to consuming liquor, Secondly, he used to demand money from
the deceased and her parents quite often; and thirdly, he also at
times used to ill-treat and assault the deceased. The incident of
ill-treatment and demand of money did not occur once but on
many a times and it started soon after the marriage which
continued till deceased’s death.  There is no reason to discard
the evidence of the father and mother of the deceased who are
the most natural and material witnesses to speak on such issues.
Indeed, in such circumstances, the daughter - a newly married
girl would always like to first disclose her domestic problems to
her mother and father and then to her close relatives because
they have access to her and are always helpful in solving her
problems.  There was no contradiction on any of the material
issues in the evidence of these four witnesses despite they being
subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defense. That apart,
why should a mother and a father speak lie unless there are
justifiable reasons behind it. Not only that, even their relatives
supported their version. Therefore, the acts and the behavior of
the appellant (husband)  towards his wife soon after their marriage
which eventually culminated in her death within seven years from
the date of their marriage squarely fell within the meaning of
Section 498-A Explanations (a) and (b) of IPC. [Paras 30, 31, 32,
33][47-E-H; 48-A-B]
2.1 The victim-deceased died due to pouring of Kerosene
oil and setting her body on fire and this act could be done only by
the appellant and by no one else.   It is proved by the following
circumstances. First, the incident in question occurred in the
house when only the deceased and the appellant were present.
In other words, the appellant was the only person present at the
time of incident in the house with the deceased. In these
circ

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