LexSUBRAMANI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 576 : 2026 INSC 249 Subramani v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 2432 of 2010) 17 March 2026 [Pankaj Mithal* and S.V.N Bhatti, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is guilty of the offences u/ss.302 and 498A of IPC and whether the sentence (two years of simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default in payment of the same, with a further three months of simple imprisonment u/s.498A IPC and sentence of life imprisonment u/s.302 IPC) awarded to him is justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 and 498A – Allegation against appellant that he poured kerosene on his wife, lit a candle and threw it upon her – Victim died due to severe burn injuries – FIR registered u/ss.302 and 498A – The Trial Court acquitted appellant on the ground that the bathroom where the incident took place was very small where two persons could not have been accommodated – Trial Court also held that dying declaration of the victim was unreliable as deceased had received more than 80 to 90 percent burn injuries and as such she may not be in a mental state to depose or state anything – However, the High Court convicted the appellant – Correctness: Held: It has come on record through evidence that the appellant used to beat and treat the deceased with cruelty – There were regular demands for money by him – PW-3, eldest daughter of appellant, an eye-witness, had clearly deposed that on the fateful night after a quarrel, appellant went out and brought kerosene, poured it on her mother and set her on fire – PW-4-Doctor, categorically stated that the death occurred due to septicaemia as a result of burn injuries sustained by victim – Another witness, * Author [2026] 3 S.C.R. 577 Subramani v. State of Karnataka PW-10-Doctor, recorded in his statement that victim informed him about the incident and a noting to that effect was also made in case sheet – PW-11, another doctor witness, stated that in the morning of 21.07.2000, the patient was conscious and in a position to give the statement, he gave permission to the police to record her statement – The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Head Constable as PW-15 – Considering the circumstances and the evidence of PW-3, PW4, PW-10 and PW-11, there is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration – This apart, the police had recovered a matchbox, a kerosene tin and burnt cloth pieces from the site of the incident immediately – In view of the above clinching pieces of evidence, there is hardly any scope for the acquittal of the appellant – The Trial Court was not justified in acquitting the appellant – The opinion of the High Court is perfectly justified. [Paras 9, 10, 12-14, 18, 20-24] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Murder; Cruelty; Demand of money; Dying declaration; Burn injuries; Pieces of evidence; Motive to kill; Medical opinion; credible evidence. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2432 of 2010 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2010 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLA No. 1104 of 2004 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant(s): Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv., Manish Tiwari, Mrs. Thashmitha Muthanna, Rakesh Kini, Shashi Bhushan Nagar, M/s. Devasa & Co. Advs. for the Respondent(s): Sanchit Garga, Kunal Rana, Shashwat Jaiswal, Ms. Aarohi Garg. 578 [2026] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. The appellant - Subramani and the deceased Chennamma were husband and wife. They were married for seventeen years before the date of the incident. They had two daughters and two sons. The eldest daughter was aged about sixteen years at the relevant time. They had lived a happy married life for about three years. Thereafter, their relations became strained, and it is alleged that the appellant started ill-treating the deceased and kept on raising demands for money, which the father of the deceased fulfilled most of the time. The appellant had even started treating her with cruelty. 2. On the night of 20.07.2000, the appellant and the deceased as usual again picked up a quarrel. The appellant, in anger, went out and fetched some kerosene. The kerosene was poured on the deceased in a bathroom, the appellant lit a candle and threw it upon her, causing serious burn injuries. The appellant, after burning her, left the house. On the alarm raised b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.