SHANTHAMALLESHAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1152 · Decided: 10-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1152                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
SHANTHAMALLESHAPPA
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1583-1584 of 2018)
DECEMBER 10, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.436 r/w. s.34 – Prosecution case was
that accused no. 1 along with accused no.2 to 4 threw kerosene oil
on the thatched shed situated in front of the house of PW-1(sister-
in-law of accused no.1) and after setting it on fire, all accused fled
away from the scene on motor cycles – Trial Court convicted all the
four accused u/s. 436 r/w. s.34 of IPC and imposed fine of
Rs.10,000/- on accused no.1 and imposed a fine of Rs.5000/- on
accused nos.2 to 4 – High Court enhanced the sentence on accused
no.1 to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of
Rs.50,000/- and set aside the conviction of accused nos.2 to 4 – On
appeal, held: There were civil disputes pending between accused
no.1 and husband of PW-1, and earlier also they had filed
complaints against each other – In view of such disputes and
complaints against each other, there was a possibility of implicating
accused by making false complaint – There were material
contradictions in the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution and further, except the interested testimony of PWs-1 to
3, no other independent person was examined as a direct witness to
the incident –  PW-1 and 2 had not stated anything about the
presence of PW-3 and whereas, PW-3 stated that she had also come
out on hearing cries of PW-1 and 2 – Further, PWs-1 and 2 had
stated that books and clothes were burnt, contrary to the statement
recorded in the mahazar in which only partial burning of pedestal
fan and the roof was stated – PW-7 admitted that nobody was residing
in the shed which ran contrary to evidence of PWs-2 and 3 wherein
they stated that PW-1, her husband and children were staying in the
shed – Material contradictions were not noticed by the trial Court
as well as the High Court which resulted in perverse findings against
the accused – Thus, impugned judgments set aside.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1152
1152
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1153
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Admittedly, the incident occurred at about 09:30
p.m. on the fateful day.  Unless sufficient light was there it was
not possible to identify the accused.  It was not the case of the
prosecution that the witness had seen the accused persons in
the light emanated from the fire.  There are material contradictions
in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and the contents of the mahazar.
In the deposition, PWs-1 and 2 have stated that books and cloths
were burnt, contrary to the statement recorded in the mahazar in
which only partial burning of the pedestal fan and the roof is stated.
In the mahazar drafted, there is not a whisper about burning of
books and clothes, and the burning of fan is conspicuously absent
in the evidence of witnesses.  It is the case of the prosecution
that accused after setting on fire the thatched shed, fled
away on the motor cycles but there was no identity of any of the
motor cycles by registration number etc.  PW-2 is also
silent regarding the presence of PW-3 at the time of incident.
[Para 11][1158-A-D]
1.2 Even according to the case of the prosecution there
were civil disputes pending between the brothers in respect of
family properties and also it is evident from the evidence on
record that 2-3 days prior to the date of incident both the brothers
have lodged complaints against each other. In view of such
disputes and complaints registered against each other, there is a
possibility of implicating accused by making a false complaint.  It
is also to be noticed that PW-1, in her deposition, has not stated
at all that P.W.-3 has come out of the house at the time of
occurrence of the incident. Contrary to the evidence of PWs-1
and 2 who have not spoken about the presence of PW-3, PW-3 in
the oral evidence has stated that she has also come out on hearing
cries of PWs-1 and 2 on the date of incident and witnessed the
incident. [Para 11][1158-C-E; 1158-H; 1159-A]
2. In the cross-examination, PW-7-Assistant Sub-Inspector
categorically admitted that nobody was residing in the shed and
the residential house is separate but the children were using the
shed for studies. Said evidence of PW-7 runs contrary to the
SHANTHAMALLESHAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1154                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
evidence of PW

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