1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1456 of 2005

JAYAMMA ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

 STATE OF KARNATAKA    .....   RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal arises out of the following facts.   

1.1 Latha, the deceased herein, about 19 years of age  

at the time of her death, had been married with Murugesh  

A1 about nine months prior to her death which happened  

on the 6th January, 1995.  The other two accused Jayamma  

and  Nagendrappa  A2  and  A3,  are  the  sister  and  the  

brother-in-law  of  the  first  accused.   After  the  

marriage, the deceased and her husband had been residing  

with A2 and A3 in the police quarters in Bangalore as  

the third accused was, at that time, working as a Head  

Constable  with  the  Bangalore  Police.   As  per  the

2

prosecution story, the accused subjected the deceased to  

mental  and  physical  cruelty  on  account  of  various  

demands including demands for dowry and that the first  

and second accused would call her a prostitute whereas  

the  third  accused  was  forcing  her  to  have  sexual  

intercourse with him as well.    This behaviour was  

conveyed by the deceased to her parents who consoled her  

and told her to live with her husband who had promised  

to conduct himself properly.  On the morning of the 6th  

January,  1995,  however,  while  the  first  accused  was  

still asleep, Jayamma the second accused started abusing  

the  deceased.   The  first  accused  thereupon  without  

speaking a word left the house whereas the third accused  

also left for his office a short while later.  At about  

9:00a.m. the deceased went into the bathroom to wash her  

face closely followed by Jayamma who was carrying a can  

of kerosene oil and after sprinkling the same on her  

person set her on fire.  On hearing Latha's screams some  

of the persons from the neighbourhood came there and  

removed her to the hospital.  Amongst these persons were  

PW 5, PW 10, PW 11 and PW 13.  She was ultimately taken  

to  the  Victoria  Hospital  in  Bangalore  where  she  was  

examined by Dr. Trishula - PW 7 who recorded on the bed  

head  ticket  on  her  statement  that  she  had  made  an  

attempt to commit suicide.  Information with regard to  

the incident was also conveyed to the police station on

3

which PW 14, the Sub-Inspector, reached the Hospital and  

after  taking  an  endorsement  from  one  Dr.  Anil  Kumar  

recorded Latha's statement between 2 and 2:30p.m., and  

on its basis a First Information Report was registered  

against the three accused for offences punishable under  

Section  307,  498A/34  of  the  IPC.   In  the  statement  

Exhibit P8, the deceased stated that she had been burnt  

by A2  with the association of the other accused. Latha  

subsequently  died  and  on  the  completion  of  the  

investigation,  the  three  accused  were  charged  for  

offences punishable under Section 302/34, 498A of the  

IPC.    

1.2 During the course of the trial, the prosecution  

relied on the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses  

as also the post mortem report which indicated 90 per  

cent burn injuries on the dead body.  The trial court  

noted that the basic issue for deliberation was as to  

whether the death was suicidal or homicidal in nature.  

The trial court relying on the evidence of PWs 5, 7, 10,  

11  and  13  observed  that  these  witnesses  had  clearly  

stated that a dying declaration had been made to them by  

the  deceased  and  this  statement  indicated  a  case  of  

suicide.  In this background, the statement Exhibit P8  

and the evidence of PW 14 was rejected by the trial  

court.  The accused were, accordingly, acquitted.  The

4

matter was thereafter taken in appeal by the State of  

Karnataka.   The  High  Court  has,  by  the  impugned  

judgment, allowed the appeal qua A2 Jayamma insofar as  

the charge of murder is concerned, but has also allowed  

the appeal qua all three accused with respect to the  

charge under Section 498A of the IPC.  Jayamma appellant  

was,  accordingly,  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  life  

under Section 302 but no separate sentence was awarded  

to her under Section 498A of the IPC  whereas the other  

two accused were released on probation.  It is in this  

situation that the appeal is before us at the instance  

of Jayamma alone.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  

It may be seen that the High Court has given preference  

to the Statement Exhibit P8 and the oral evidence of PW  

14  who  had  recorded  the  statement  and  also  on  the4  

evidence of PW 1, the mother of the deceased that the  

story given in P8 was in fact the correct one.  We,  

however, find that there is no discussion whatsover by  

the High Court as to the veracity or otherwise of the  

evidence of Pws 5, 10, 11 and 13.  We have gone through  

the evidence of these four witnesses very carefully and  

it reveals that several statements had been made by them  

in the course of their evidence that the deceased had  

stated  that  she  had  burnt  herself  in  an  attempt  to

5

commit suicide.  Curiously, the High Court has not even  

alluded  to these statements.  Likewise, we find that  

the  evidence  of  PW  7  Dr.  Trishul  fully  supports  the  

theory of suicide.  We see, therefore, that the evidence  

of Pws 5, 10, 11 and 13 is supported by the medical  

record that the deceased had burnt herself in an attempt  

to commit suicide.

3. We have also gone through the evidence of PW 1 who  

could be said have to some extent supported the theory  

of murder.  We find that except for the fact that she  

stated that her daughter was being ill-treated even by  

appellant Jayamma  she has not said a word about any  

dying declaration being made to her or as to  how the  

deceased had suffered the injuries  though as per her  

own  showing,  she  had  reached  the  hospital  at  about  

9:30a.m..  We are, therefore, left with the solitary  

statement of PW 14 and the Report Exhibit P8.  In this  

connection, it must be noted that Dr. Anil Kumar  who  

had given the endorsement that the deceased had been fit  

to  make  a  statement  did  not  come  to  give  evidence  

despite  being  served  twice  over.   We  are  unable  to  

fathom as to why coercive steps were not taken by Court  

as his evidence would have been relevant in proving the  

condition of the deceased at the time when her statement  

had been recorded at 2:30p.m., on the 6th January, 1995.

6

In the light of the fact that the trial court had on a  

consideration of the evidence recorded an acquittal in  

favour of the accused and taken a view which was clearly  

possible on the evidence, we feel that the High Court  

should not have interfered in this matter.

4. We, accordingly, allow the appeal insofar as the  

conviction of Jayamma  under Section 302 of the IPC is  

concerned but dismiss the appeal qua Section 498A of the  

IPC.  We also direct that the appellant will undergo six  

months imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A  

and also pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment  

of fine to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

..............................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

..............................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI MARCH 31, 2011.