REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1469 OF 2008

Govindappa & Ors.                                       .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Karnataka              .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)  This appeal is directed against the final judgment and  

order  dated  04.10.2007  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 2573 of  

2006 whereby the High Court partly allowing the appeal  

acquitted  Laxmibai – A-3, the mother of the appellants  

herein and Bhagirathi-A-5, the grandmother of  appellants  

and  affirming  the  sentence  passed  by  the  trial  Court  

1

convicted A-1, A-2 and A-4, appellants herein, for offences  

under Section 498-A/34 IPC and Section 302/34 IPC.

2) The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:

The deceased -  Renuka,  was married  to  appellant  No.1  

about 10 years prior to the date of the incident.  As per  

the prosecution case, on 10.12.2005, at about 12 noon,  

the  appellants  herein,  along  with  their  mother  and  

grandmother tried to pour kerosene oil and lit fire on the  

deceased and because of that she raised hue and cry.  On  

hearing  her  noise,  five  neighbours  came  and  requested  

them not to do so but the accused persons asked them  

not  to  interfere  in  their  family  matter.   Appellant  No.3  

poured kerosene on the deceased and appellant No.2 set  

fire  in  the  presence  of  the  neighbours.  After  pouring  

kerosene, the accused persons ran away from the house  

and the neighbours extinguished the fire and covered the  

deceased with blanket and had taken her immediately to  

the Government Hospital Bagalkot.  At about 2.30 p.m.,  

the Doctor (PW-7) informed the police and the Magistrate  

2

(Tehsildar) (PW 12) came to the Hospital at 4.30 p.m. and  

recorded the dying declaration of the deceased which is  

filed as Ex. P-9.  The Police Officer came to the hospital  

after  7  p.m.  and  taken  the  statement  of  the  deceased  

which was written by Govindagowda Patil  –  PW-11,  the  

neighbour, and F.I.R. was registered at the police station  

at 7.15 p.m. which is Ex. P-10.  The Investigating Officer,  

PW-17 came to the hospital at 8.30 p.m. and again tried to  

take the statement of the deceased but she was not in a  

position to give any statement and at 9.00 p.m., she died.  

The  Inquest  Panchnama  was  prepared  at  about  11.00  

p.m.  On 11.12.2005, post mortem was conducted by the  

Doctor,  PW-7,  the  report  of  which  is  Ex.  P-5.   The  

Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet on 23.01.2006.  

On 26.06.2006,  the  Fast  Track  Court,  Bagalkot  framed  

the  charges  against  all  the  five  accused  persons  under  

Sections 498-A, 143, 147, 341, 302 read with Section 149  

I.P.C.  By order dated 03.10.2006, the Fast Track Court,  

Bagalkot  convicted  all  the  five  accused  for  the  offence  

3

punishable  under  Sections  498-A,  143,  147,  341,  302  

read  with  Section  149  I.P.C.  and  sentenced  them  to  

undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  two  years  and  also  

sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each in default,  

simple  imprisonment  for  three  months  for  the  offence  

punishable  under  Section  498-A read with  Section  149  

I.P.C.  and  further  convicted  them  for  the  offences  

punishable  under  Section  302/149  IPC  and  sentenced  

them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of  

Rs.10,000/- each in default, simple imprisonment for one  

year.  All of them filed a Criminal Appeal being Appeal No.  

2573  of  2006  before  the  High  Court.   By  order  dated  

04.10.2007, the High Court by partly allowing the appeal  

acquitted A-3 and A-5 of all  the charges leveled against  

them and affirming the sentence passed by the trial Court  

on  A-1,  A-2  and  A-4  convicted  them  for  the  offence  

punishable  under  Section  498-A/34  I.P.C.  and  Section  

302/34 I.P.C.  Aggrieved by the said order, accused Nos.  

1, 2 and 4 have preferred this appeal by way of special  

4

leave petition.

3) We have heard Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for  

the appellants-accused and Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned  

counsel for the respondent-State.  

4)  Points for consideration in this appeal are:-

(i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the  

appellants-accused  A-1,  A-2,  and  A-4  for  offences  

punishable under Section 498A, read with Section 34 IPC  

and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC?

(ii)  Whether the sentence imposed upon the appellants-

accused is justifiable?

(iii)   Whether the High Court  is  right  in confirming the  

conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants?

5)  In this appeal, we are concerned only with A-1, A-2 and  

A-4, since the other accused A-3 and A-5 were acquitted  

by the High Court.

6)  Apart from various materials in the form of oral and  

documentary  evidence,  the  Trial  Court  accepted  the  

evidence  of  eye-witnesses,  namely,  PW-3,  PW-4,  PW-5,  

5

PW-6 as well as Dr. Uma Kant PW-7 who treated Renuka,  

father  of  the  deceased  PW-9,  one  elderly  person  of  the  

village PW-10 and Taluk Executive Magistrate PW-12 who  

had recorded the dying declaration of Renuka.  Learned  

counsel for the appellants-accused pointed out that as per  

the prosecution, there were five witnesses present at the  

spot  of  incident,  even before  the  victim was burnt,  but  

none of them stopped the accused or tried to prevent the  

incident.  He also submitted that the Trial Court and the  

High Court committed an error in relying upon the dying  

declaration recorded by PW-12 since PW-12 has neither  

taken  the  certificate  from  the  Doctor  nor  asked  any  

question  to  verify  the  mental  condition  of  the  deceased  

Renuka, particularly,  when she suffered 100% burns as  

shown in the post-mortem report.   

7) At the foremost, let us verify the evidence of Dr. Uma  

Kant PW-7 who treated the injured Renuka when she was  

brought  to  the  hospital.   Though,  he  had  stated  that  

injured  Renuka  had  sustained  100%  burn  injuries,  at  

6

about 4.45 p.m., according to him, she was in a fit state of  

mind to give statement.  Based on the statement of doctor  

PW-7,  Taluka Executive  Magistrate  PW-12 recorded  her  

statement in the presence of PW-7.  It is further seen that  

after recording the statement, her left thumb impression  

was  taken  on  the  statement,  the  doctor  PW-7  also  

subscribed  his  signature.   It  is  true  that  in  the  cross-

examination it was elicited that the tongue of the deceased  

was swollen and protruded and lips were burnt.  Though  

this  suggestion  has  been  admitted  by  PW-7,  the  fact  

remains at the time of recording her statement PW-7 was  

satisfied that Renuka was in a fit condition and in a fit  

state of mind to make a statement.  There is no reason to  

disbelieve the version of PW-7 who made initial treatment  

and he was very well present during the entire period of  

recording  the  statement  (Ex.  P-9).   We  hold  that  the  

evidence of PW-7 coupled with PW-12 are acceptable and  

support the case of the prosecution.

7

8)  Now, let us discuss the other eye-witnesses, first and  

foremost is PW-3.  According to him, he is residing in a  

house  adjacent  to  the  deceased Renuka.   He  explained  

that he knew the family members of the appellants and  

the deceased.  He also explained that sister-in-law of the  

deceased  A-4  desired  to  give  her  elder  daughter  in  

marriage to A-1 and because of that Renuka was being  

assaulted  by  the  appellants.   He  deposed  that  on  

10.12.2005 at 12.00 o’clock he heard a crying sound from  

the house of the appellants.  He along with others went to  

the house of the appellants and they found A-1, A-3 and  

A-5 holding Renuka.  A-2 had a match-box in his hand  

and A-4 was holding kerosene can.  Though he requested  

not to cause any harm to Renuka, according to him, the  

accused  person  were  holding  Renuka  and  sister-in-law  

(A-4)  poured  kerosene.   He  further  asserted  that  after  

setting fire by pouring kerosene accused A-1 to A-4 ran  

away  from  the  scene  of  occurrence.   Though,  he  also  

implicated A-3 and A-5 in the commission of offence but  

8

in the absence of  further corroboration,  the High Court  

has rightly acquitted them.  However, there is no reason to  

disbelieve the evidence of PW-3 insofar as A-1, A-2 and A-

4  appellants  herein  that  they  were  responsible  for  the  

cause of the death of Renuka.   

9)  The next witness is Govindappa PW-4, who witnessed  

the  incident  and  partly  supported  the  case  of  the  

prosecution.   He  explained  how  the  deceased  was  

humiliated and harassed by the appellants.  According to  

him,  this  was  narrated  to  him  by  Renuka  during  her  

lifetime  and  on  several  occasions  she  had  gone  to  her  

native place due to ill-treatment meted out to her at the  

hands  of  the  appellants.   He  also  explained  that  on  

10.12.2005 at about 12.00 o’clock,  when he was in his  

house, he heard cries from the house of the appellants.  

He rushed to their house and saw in the first floor Renuka  

was in  ablaze.   As  rightly  observed by the  High Court,  

though,  PW-4  did  not  support  the  entire  case  of  

prosecution and he had been treated as hostile witness,  

9

his evidence to the extent A-2 and A-4 participating in the  

commission of offence is proved.  To this extent, the High  

Court has rightly accepted his testimony.   

10)  The next eye-witness examined by the prosecution is  

one  -  Prakash  PW-6.   He  explained  how  Renuka  was  

humiliated  and harassed  by  the  appellants  and  on the  

relevant date and time and after hearing the cries he went  

to the first floor and found A-1, A-2 and A-5 were holding  

Renuka,  A-4  was  holding  kerosene  can  and  A-2  was  

holding  a  matchstick.   He  further  deposed  that  the  

accused informed him that it is their family matter and  

none should interfere.  At that time, A-4 poured kerosene  

on the body of Renuka and A-2 lighted match stick and lit  

fire to Renuka and immediately all the accused ran away  

from the scene of occurrence.  As observed by the High  

Court,  the  evidence  of  PW-6  shows  that  A-4  poured  

kerosene and A-2 lit fire.  The above statement of PW-6  

finds  support  from the  dying  declaration  Ex.  P-7.   His  

assertion  that  A-1  was  holding  Renuka  also  finds  

10

corroboration from the dying declaration Ex. P-9.  In other  

words,  the  evidence  of  PW-6  clearly  proves  the  

participation  of  A-1,  A-2 and A-4 in  the  commission of  

offence.   

11)  Krishnappa, father of the deceased was examined as  

PW-9.  He explained how his daughter was harassed and  

humiliated by the appellants.  He also explained the desire  

of  A-4  sister-in-law  of  the  deceased  to  give  her  elder  

daughter to A-1.  His evidence gets support from the dying  

declaration  Ex.  P-9  and  to  this  extent  the  same  is  

acceptable and rightly relied on by the High Court.   

12)   An elderly  person from the same village  had been  

examined  as  PW-10  and  he  also  narrated  how  the  

deceased  Renuka  was  humiliated  and  harassed  at  the  

instance of the appellants.

13)   Other  important  witness  is  H.N.  Nagaraj,  PW-12,  

Taluka Executive Magistrate.  He deposed before the Court  

that he had recorded the dying declaration of Renuka and  

the  same was  recorded  after  ascertaining  her  condition  

11

from PW-7 Dr. Uma Kant.  After noting that Renuka was  

in a fit state of mind from Dr. Uma Kant PW-7 and she  

was in a position to make the statement, in the presence  

of PW-7 he recorded her statement on 10.12.2005 at 4.45  

p.m.  He denied the suggestion that Renuka was not in a  

position to make a statement.   

14)   About  dying  declaration  Ex.  P-9,  we  have  already  

adverted  to  the  evidence  of  Dr.  Uma  Kant  (PW-7),  

Government District Hospital Bagalkot.  He explained that  

on  10.12.2005  at  2.20  p.m.  injured  Renuka  w/o  

Govindappa Macha was brought with history of burns on  

the same day at 1.00 p.m. and she was admitted in the  

hospital  and treatment was given to her.   When Taluka  

Executive Magistrate    (PW-12) came to the hospital at  

about 4.45 p.m., he enquired about the mental condition  

of  the  patient  and  whether  she  is  capable  of  giving  

statement for which PW-7 informed that the patient is in a  

fit  state  of  mind  to  give  statement.   Accordingly,  the  

statement was recorded in his presence and then Renuka  

12

put her left thumb impression on the said statement and  

both the Doctor and the Magistrate also signed on the said  

statement.  It is true that on the same night at 9.00 p.m.  

the injured expired due to burn injuries and post-mortem  

was  conducted.   On  examination  of  body,  he  found  

superficial (epidermal burn) all over the body.  Hyperaemic  

skin,  singeing  of  hair  present,  burn  100%  few  small  

blisters are seen over the face containing serous ferrous  

fluids,  skin  is  red  and  hyperaemic,  singeing  of  hair  

present on head, duramater is leathery, brain is shrunken  

and yellow.  All the internal organs were congested, coal  

particles  are  seen  in  nose,  mouth,  trachea  and  

oseophagus.  Found smell of kerosene oil on her body.  He  

is of the opinion that death is due to shock as a result of  

100% burn,  time  since  death  is  within  4  to  24  hours.  

Accordingly, he issued the post-mortem report as per Ex.  

P-5, which bears his signature.     PW-7 has also denied  

the suggestion that the deceased-Renuka was in the semi-

coma till the death.   

13

15) Though, it was argued that PW-12 Tahsildar has not  

obtained the certificate from the Medical Officer regarding  

condition of the deceased, that itself  is not sufficient to  

discard the dying declaration (Ex. P-9).  What is essential  

required  is  that  the  person  who  recorded  the  dying  

declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit  

state of mind.  The certification by the doctor is essentially  

a rule of caution and, therefore, the voluntary and truthful  

nature  of  the  declaration  can  be  established  otherwise.  

The  evidence  of  doctor  (Pw-7)  clearly  shows  that  the  

deceased was in a sound state of mind while giving the  

statement  before  the  Tahsildar  (PW-12).   In  such  

circumstances,  we  are  of  the  view  that  such  a  dying  

declaration has got due weight in the evidence.  Further,  

as stated earlier, the doctor has explained that though the  

deceased Renuka sustained 100% burn injuries, she was  

in  a  position  to  talk.   In  such  circumstances,  her  

statement  cannot  be  rejected  on  the  ground  that  she  

sustained severe burn injuries.  Normally, the person on  

14

the  verge  of  death  will  not  implicate  somebody  falsely.  

Even if we accept some contradiction in Ex. P-7 complaint,  

in the light of Ex. P-9 dying declaration coupled with the  

evidence  of  eye-witnesses,  there  is  ample  evidence  on  

record to hold that the appellants ill-treated the deceased  

Renuka and subjected her to cruelty by giving both mental  

and physical torture and in furtherance of their common  

intention  only  to  commit  the  murder  of  the  deceased,  

poured  kerosene  and  set  fire  on  her  who  ultimately  

succumbed to the injuries on the same day in the District  

Hospital, Bagalkot.  In our view, dying declaration (Ex. P-

9) fully corroborates the evidence of Doctor and Tahsildar  

who recorded it.  

16)   The  analysis  of  the  prosecution  witnesses,  

particularly,  PW-3,  PW-4,  PW-10  elderly  person  of  the  

village  and  PW-12  Taluk  Executive  Magistrate  who  

recorded the dying declaration of  Renuka clearly proves  

the involvement of appellants in the commission of offence  

as charged and they were rightly awarded sentence of life  

15

imprisonment.  Though, it was pointed out that there were  

certain  discrepancies,  according  to  us,  they  all  are  

minimal  and  it  had  not  affected  the  case  of  the  

prosecution.   As  discussed  earlier,  in  view  of  the  oral  

evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-9, PW-10, PW-

12 coupled with dying declaration Ex. P-9, we hold that  

the prosecution has fully established its case against the  

appellants  and  we  are  in  entire  agreement  with  the  

conclusion arrived by the High Court.   

17)  In the light of the above discussion, we do not find  

any  merit  in  the  appeal,  consequently,  the  same  is  

dismissed.   

...…………………………………J.  (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

....…………………………………J.   (H.L. DATTU)

NEW DELHI; MAY 11, 2010     

16