NARENDRA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 585 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 585 
~ 
NARENDRA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2007 
' 
MAY 5, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ] 
~ 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.302 and 498-A - Death of wife -
Acquittal of husband- However, conviction ulss.302 and 498-
A by High Court - Interference with - Held: Not called for -
c 
Trial court lost sight of certain material aspects - Evidence of 
prosecution witnesses as regard the death of deceased 
corroborated
1by medical evidence - Plea of alibi was false. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal is whether the High Court was justified in setting D 
) 
aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by trial court, 
having found the appellant-accused guilty of offence 
punishable u/ss. 498 A and 302 IPC. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: In the instant case, there are certain material 
aspects which were lost sight of by the trial court but have 
been noted by the High Court. The dead body was 
-\ 
detected in the morning of 14.2.1994. Parents of the 
deceased informed the police and not the inmates. The 
F 
parents were informed by neighbours and not by the 
inmates. DW2 has been disbelieved as he was nearly 70 
yeas of age. It was highly improbably that he was in 
employment as a watchman. The trial court had held that 
the evidence of PWs. 6 to 8 regarding pressing mark on 
the neck and injuries on the fore arms of the deceased G 
are not corroborated by the medical opinion. This is 
factually incorrect. The doctor categorically stated that he 
was of the opinion that death was due to result of 
compression of the neck, and the post mortem report was 
585 
H 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A accordingly issued. PW6 stated that second opinion was 
sought for and then the report was given. The falsity of 
alibi is an additional link. [Para 5] [589-B-E] 
Trimuch Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra 2006 (10) 
sec 681 - referred to. 
B 
Case Law Reference 
2006 (1 o) sec 681 
Referred to 
Para 6 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimi[)al Appeal 
c No. 1502 of 2007 
From the Judgement and Order dated 02.01.2007 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal 
Appeal No. 1048 of 2000. 
N.D.B. Raju, Bharthi Raju, N. Ganpathy, for the Appellant. 
D 
Anitha Shenoy, for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
E 
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of the Karnataka High Court setting aside the judgment 
of acquittal recorded by learned Third Additional Sessions 
Judge, Bangalore. Learned Sessions Judge have found the 
accused appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 
F 498(A) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short the 
'IPC'). 
2. Background facts leading to the prosecution of the 
appellant are as follows: 
On 13/14.2.1994 Smt. Mythradevi (hereinafter referred to 
G as the 'deceased') was done to death in the bedroom of the 
matrimonial home of the deceased. According to 'the 
investigation reports by about 6 a.m. on 14.2.1994 the inmates 
of the matrimonial home of the deceased learnt about the 
suspicious death of the deceased. By 9.30 a.m. on the very 
H same day parents of the deceased came to the matrimonial 
i" 
.. 
.. 
' 
NARENDRA V. STATE OF KARNAT~KA 
587 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
·~ 
home of the deceased after hearing the news of death of their A 
daughter Mythradevi. Father of the deceased (P.W.6) informed 
the same to the Jurisdictional Police i.e., Srirampura Police 
Station as per complaint Ex. P.6. Thereafter, first part of 
investigation under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') proceedings took place B 
at about 2 p.m. on the same date after arrival ofTaluk Executive 
Magistrate Mr. Y.M. Ramachandra Murthy (P.W.1). His inquest 
' 
report is at Ex. P.1. The investigating agency kept watch over 
~ 
the dead body till the inquest proceedings were conducted, then 
; 
the dead body was shifted for post mortem to Victoria hospital. 
As it was late in the night, autopsy was done on the dead body c 
-( 
on 15.2.1994 by Dr. S.B. Patil (P.W.2). He gave postmortem 
report as per Ex. P2 and his opinion is at Ex. P 3. According to 
-
him, death was due to asphyxia as a result of compression of 
neck by human hands. 
-· 
The parents, sisters and other relatives of the deceased D 
were examined. Their statements revealed after marriage 
_J 
between the parties, de

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