State Of Karnataka vs Suvarnamma & Anr

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Soumya was married to the accused-Manjunath on 13th May, 1996. She was living with her husband and his mother co-accused Suvarnamma. She was not treated well and was harassed for dowry. On 31st August, 1998 at about 6.15 P.M., when her husband had gone out, the accused Suvarnamma brought kerosene can, poured kerosene on the deceased-Soumya and ignited the fire. She cried for help but Suvernamma put a rug on her. Thereafter, she shifted her to Chigateri General Hospital, Davangere. PW-19, Dr. Rajeshwari Devi, examined her. Next day in the morning of 1st September, 1998, at about 7 A.M., PW-26, V. Dhananjaya, PSI, in the presence of PW-19, Dr. Rajeshwari Devi recorded her statement and on that basis registered First Information Report. Soumya died on 3rd September, 1998. After investigation, the accused–the husband, the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law, were sent up for trial.

3. The prosecution examined 26 witnesses which included the family members of the deceased who gave evidence of demand of dowry and also the oral dying declarations made before them.

PW-22, Taluqa Executive Magistrate, was examined to prove the inquest report. The prosecution also examined the medical experts and the investigating officers. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they were taken out of their house by the police at 12 A.M. mid- night and arrested and were not aware of anything.

4. The Trial Court held that the offences were proved against the respondents-accused. However, co-accused Geetha, sister of Manjunath was acquitted. The Trial Court held that the demand of dowry soon before the death was established by the evidence of family members of the deceased which was reliable. The Trial Court rejected the plea that the prosecution had withheld the dying declaration (Exhibit D-7) recorded by PW-22 that the deceased caught fire accidentally; she had switched on the gas stove and had gone to change her clothes; when after returning back, she lit the match stick, as a result of which fire broke out resulting in accidental burn injuries.

12. The Court dealing with a criminal trial is to perform the task of ascertaining the truth from the material before it. It has to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Burden of proof is on the prosecution and the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Much weight cannot be given to minor discrepancies which are bound to occur on account of difference in perception, loss of memory and other invariable factors. In the absence of direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence can be the basis of conviction if the circumstances are of conclusive nature and rule out all reasonable possibilities of accused being innocent. Once the prosecution probabilises the involvement of the accused but the accused takes a false plea, such false plea can be taken as an additional circumstance against the accused. Though Article 20 (3) of the Constitution incorporates the rule against self incrimination, the scope and the content of the said rule does not require the Court to ignore the conduct of the accused in not correctly disclosing the facts within his knowledge. When the accused takes a false plea about the facts exclusively known to him, such circumstance is a vital additional circumstance against the accused.

15. In the light of above principles, we may now examine the questions arising in the present case. Admittedly, the marriage of the deceased took place within seven years of her death. Her death is by burn injuries. There is evidence of demand of dowry soon before the death. Plea of the deceased who were living with the deceased is that they had no idea about the incident and were sleeping when plice picked them up at the night. During the trial, inference of death being an accident is sought to be drawn on the basis of alleged dying declaration (Exhibit D-7) coupled with the conduct of the prosecution in not producing the said dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, PW-22 in the presence of Dr. Rajeshwari Devi and also the fact that though PW-1 admitted that the police came to the hospital in the night itself, the stand of the Investigating Officer was that he came in the morning.

20. As a result of above discussion, it is clearly established that :

21. In view of the above, the view taken by the High Court is clearly unsustainable.

22. In appeal against the acquittal, if a possible view has been taken, no interference is required, but if the view taken is not legally sustainable, the Court has ample powers to interfere with the order of acquittal.

23. Accordingly, we hold that the case against the accused stands fully established. The view taken by the High Court for acquittal is not a possible view.

24. The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and that passed by the Trial Court is restored with the modification that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused under Section 304B will stand reduced to R.I. for seven years while maintaining sentence under other heads.

25. The accused may be arrested to serve out the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, as modified above.