http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: C. V. GOVINDAPPA  & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/01/1998

BENCH: CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, M. SRINIVASAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 1998 present :                  Hon’ble the Chief Justice                  Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan Mr. S. S. Javeri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mohan V. Kataria for Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Advocate with him for the appellants. Mr. Kh.  Nobin Singh, Mrs. Manjula Kulkarni for M. Veerappa, Advocates for the respondent                       J U D G M E N T      Th following Judgment of the Court was delivered: SRINIVASAN, J.      The appellant  is challenging  the judgment of the High Court  of   Karnataka  convicting  him  for  offences  under Sections 302,  304 and  498-A I.P.C.  and sentencing  him to imprisonment for life for the offence under Sections 302 IPC and rigorous  imprisonment for two years and payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC with a direction that the substantive sentence of imprisonment were to run concurrently. The High Court reversed the Judgment of the Sessions  Judge at  Chitradurga acquitting the appellant and his  mother Thimmakka.  The appeal  by the State against the appellant’s  mother before  the High Court was dismissed and in  fact the  acquittal of the appellant’s mother by the Session’s Court  was not  seriously challenged  in the  High Court. 2.   The appellant  married Yashodhamma  in September  1976. Even before  the marriage  there was  demand  for  dowry  of jewels and Rs. 50, 000/- in cash and only a part thereof was paid. The  remaining part was being paid in instalments. the appellant was  repeatedly demanding payment of dowry in cash and also  jewels. he  was treating  his wife with cruelty as evident from letters written by her to her relations. Though there were tow children, the appellant did not stop the ill- treatment of  his wife.  on 26.1.1984  there was  a  quarrel between husband and wife which was noticed by the neighbors. In the  evening between 5 and 5.30 P.M. the appellant’s wife came running out of the house with flames on her clothes and dashed against the scooter of the appellant kept in front of the house.  she fell  down and  rolled on  the  ground.  The appellant came  out of the house and restored the scooter to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

its stand  but did  not take steps to save his wife and went away after  merely touching  her. The  neighbours  who  were present made  all attempts to put out the flames by wrapping her in  a rug and removing the burning clothes for her body. An auto  rickshaw was  brought by  one of  them and  she was taken to the Government hospital. 3.   Even before  that the  appellant’s wife  had  told  the neighbours that  her husband  had poured kerosene oil on her and set fire. While going in auto-rikshaw she was repeatedly saying that  her husband  had burnt her. She was admitted in the hospital  by PW  12 to whom the appellant’s wife had two days before  the incident  given a  sum  of  Rs.  100/-  and addresses of  her brothers  with a request to inform them in the event of anything untoward happening to her. PW -12 sent telegrams to  the relatives  of the  appellant’s  wife.  The appellant went  to the  hospital later  in the night and saw his wife  in the  ward. He  scolded PW  12  Krishnaveni  fro staying in the hospital by the side of his wife and told her that whatever  had happened  and his wife should be properly advised. 4.   On 27.1.1984  the statement of the appellant’s wife was recorded  by   PW  27,   P.S.I.  Extension  Police  Station, Devangere. The appellant was arrested on the same day in the hospital where  he was  undertaking treatment  as an  indoor patient. The appellant’s wife died on 28.1.84 at about 12.30 AM. After  completion of investigation the appellant and his mother stood charged with offence under Section 302 and 408A IPC. 5.   The Court  Session disbelieved  the evidence adduced by the prosecution  and accused.  On appeal  the High Court set aside the  judgment of  the Court  of Sessions and so far as the appellant is concerned, convicted bin an aforesaid. 6.   Though the High Court refused to accept the credibility of the statement containing dying declaration escorted by PW 27 and  also the  entry in  the  Accident  Register  of  the hospital containing  the  version  given  by  the  deceased, accepted the evidence of PWs 2, 13 and 14 and then factum of dying declaration  made to  them by  the deceased.  The High Court has  found that  the evidence  of the  aforesaid three witnesses is quai natural and there is no reason whatever to reject the  same.  Consequently  the  High  Court  found  no difficulty in  accepting  the  declarations  made  to  those witnesses. 7.   Before us  it is  vehemently contended  by the  learned counsel for  the appellant  that there are several loopholes in the  case of  the prosecution  which make  it unworthy of acceptance. According  to learned  counsel the  evidence  of PWs 12  to 14 is of no value as  there is no explanation for their not taking any steps to inform the police immediately. It is  also contended  that there is no explanation for non- examination of  the two  persons who  were sent  by PW 12 to give message  to the incident. It is further argued that the evidence of the doctor PW 6 who admitted the deceased in the hospital proved  that she  was not in a position to speak at all and  she could  not therefore  have made  any  statement immediately prior to the admission in the hospital to PWs 12 to 14.  It is  also submitted that the appellant was himself hospitalised fro treatment of burn injuries in his left hand which he  sustained when  he attempted  to save  his wife. A comment is  also made with regard to non-seizure of material objects in the house of the appellant. It is argued that the High Court  had no  justification to  reverse the  order  of acquittal passed  by the  Court of Sessions which was passed on a detailed reasoning. 8.   We are unable to accept any of the contentions urged by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

the appellant’s  learned counsel.  Before adverting  to  the circumstances pointed out by him we would like to refer to a clinching circumstance  which is evident from the conduct of the appellant  soon after the incident. it should be pointed out that  the appellant  had no specific case whatever as to how his wife died. His wife was aged 25 at the time of death and there is no doubt whatever that her death was unnatural. There is  no case  before the Court that she died on account of any accident of by committing suicide. 9.   It is admitted that the appellant did not take his wife to the  hospital or  make any attempt to get any medical aid for her  when he  know that she was suffering from burns. he had seen her admittedly lying on the ground with flames, yet he did  not take  any steps  to help  her or take her to the hospital. 10.  It is  worthwhile to  refer to  the following questions put to  the following  questions put  to the appellant under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and the answers given by him.      Q. 46:  It is in evidence of PWs 12      to 14  that there  was  scooter  in      front of  your house  at that  time      and  due  to  rush  of  Yashodhamma      running out she hit the scooter and      it fell  by its  side. What  do you      say?      Ans. It  is false.  I tried  to put      out  the   fire  at  that  time.  I      sustained burn  injury to  my  left      hand.      Q. 47.  It is in evidence of PWs 12      to 14  that Yashodhamma  got up and      went in front of the house of PW 12      and fell  on the  road and  started      rolling. What do you say?      Ans. She was lying on the road.      Q. 48.  it is in evidence of PWs 12      to 14  that you  came out  of  your      house and  instead of  attending to      your wife, you lifted and stationed      the scooter  and touched  your wife      yashodhamma with your left hand and      went inside  the house. What do you      say?      Ans. I  tried to  put out  the fire      and at  that time  I  sustained  an      injury to my left hand.      Q.57. it  is in evidence of PWs 12,      14, 15 and 16 that around 5.45 P.M.      they reached  the hospital  and got      Yashodhamma    shifted    to    the      Causality Medical  Officer. What do      you say?      Ans. It  is false. When went to the      hospital, Yashodha was in the ward. 11.  If the  appellant’s wife died on account of an accident or by committing suicide, the appellant would have certainly attempted to  put  out  the  flames  and  take  her  to  the hospital. The above answers given by the appellant show that he was totally indifferent. That conduct of the appellant is undoubtedly a  circumstance to  be taken  into  account  for deciding the question whether the appellant was guilty. 12.  The evidence  of PWs  12 to 14 has been accepted by the high court  and in  our opinion  nothing has  been placed on record to show that any of the three witness is motivated to speak against  the appellant. Their neighbors have witnessed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

the incident,  after the  wife of the appellant came running out of  the house  and fell  on the ground. Attempt has been made before  us to  discredit their  evidence by  contending that none of them took any steps to inform the police. We do not find  anything unnatural in the conduct of PWs 12 to 14. They were  more keen  on the appellant’s wife being taken to the hospital  and given  a proper  treatment and  inform her close relatives.  Information to the police was given by the doctor in  the hospital who is examined as PW 6. Immediately after admitting  the appellant’s  wife in  the hospital PW 6 sent a  memo to the Sub inspector of police. Learned counsel for the  appellant made  a comment that the said memo marked as Ex. P.6 does not contain any statement that the appellant set fire  to his  wife  or  was  responsible  for  the  burn injuries  suffered  by  her.  There  is  no  merit  in  this contention. The memo is in a prescribed from found in a book obviously kept  by the  hospital. One of the forms is filled up and sent by the doctor to the Sub inspector of police. It was not  necessary at all to mention all the statements made to the  doctor by the persons who brought the patient to him in that memo. It was not part of his duty. 13.  The learned  counsel for  the appellant argued that the appellants wife  was not  in a  position to talk even to the neighbours when  they tried to put out the flames. According to learned  counsel the  evidence of PW 6 to the effect that auto rickshaw driver told him that she was not in a position to talk  when she  was brought to the hospital would lead to the inference  that she  was not  in a position to talk even when she  was proceeding  to the  hospital or  before  that. There is  absolutely no  substance in  this contention. Even assuming that  the deceased  was not  in a position to speak when she  reached the  hospital, it  cannot be  said by  any stretch of  imagination that  she was  not in  a position to speak either in the auto rickshaw or before that. 14.  There is no merit in the contention that the messengers sent by  PW 12  to Bangalore  to inform the relatives of the deceased about  the incident  have not  been examined. Their evidence would  if at all be only that they were informed by PW 12  about the  same. it  would not  help the court in any manner to  decide t he issue. We have no hesitation to agree with the  High Court  that the  evidence of  PW 12  to 14 is acceptable and  sufficient to  prove the  statements made by the appellant’s wife soon after the incident that it was the appellant’s wife  soon after  the incident  that it  was the appellant who set fire on her after pouring kerosene on her. 15.  There  is   no  substance  in  the  argument  that  the appellant himself  was undergoing  treatment in the hospital for injuries  suffered by  him when he attempted to save his wife. The  only piece of evidence to show that the appellant was in  - patient in the hospital is the deposition of PW 28 who arrested  there. It  is also  stated by  PW 28  that the appellant had  burn injury  on his  left  hand  and  he  was admitted to the hospital. There is nothing on record to show the extent  of the  injuries in the hand of the appellant or the  necessity   for  his   admission  in  the  hospital  as inpatient. We  have already  pointed out  that the appellant did not  take any  step to  put out  the flames  or save his wife. In  the circumstances  we are  unable  to  accept  the contention of the appellant’s counsel in this regard. 16.  After going  through the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that  the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is unassailable. There  is no  merit in  the appeal  and it  is hereby dismissed.  The accused  is  on  bail;  the  same  is cancelled. He shall surrender and undergo sentence.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5