Mahadevappa vs State of Karnataka Rep. by Public Prosecutor

HELD: 1. A perusal of the evidence of the four prosecution witnesses clearly proved that firstly the appellant was addicted to consuming liquor, Secondly, he used to demand money from the deceased and her parents quite often; and thirdly, he also at times used to ill-treat and assault the deceased. The incident of ill-treatment and demand of money did not occur once but on many a times and it started soon after the marriage which continued till deceased’s death. There is no reason to discard the evidence of the father and mother of the deceased who are the most natural and material witnesses to speak on such issues. Indeed, in such circumstances, the daughter - a newly married girl would always like to first disclose her domestic problems to her mother and father and then to her close relatives because they have access to her and are always helpful in solving her problems. There was no contradiction on any of the material issues in the evidence of these four witnesses despite they being subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defense. That apart, why should a mother and a father speak lie unless there are justifiable reasons behind it. Not only that, even their relatives supported their version. Therefore, the acts and the behavior of the appellant (husband) towards his wife soon after their marriage which eventually culminated in her death within seven years from the date of their marriage squarely fell within the meaning of Section 498-A Explanations (a) and (b) of IPC. [Paras 30, 31, 32, 33][47-E-H; 48-A-B]

2.1 The victim-deceased died due to pouring of Kerosene oil and setting her body on fire and this act could be done only by the appellant and by no one else. It is proved by the following circumstances. First, the incident in question occurred in the house when only the deceased and the appellant were present. In other words, the appellant was the only person present at the time of incident in the house with the deceased. In these circumstances, it was the appellant who could give some plausible explanation as to how and in what manner the incident in question occurred. The explanation given by the appellant was that the deceased’s sari accidentally caught fire when she was boiling the water on the oven. This story of the appellant cannot be believed. Second, the evidence of I.O., Post-Mortem Report, FSL report and the evidence of doctor (PW-6) has proved that kerosene oil was found on the body of deceased and second, one bottle of kerosene oil was also lying in the room. The presence of kerosene oil on the body of deceased would indicate that the kerosene oil was poured on her body. Since the appellant was the only person present in the room (kitchen), it was he who could do it. Third, the presence of broken bangles found in the room suggest that the deceased must have struggled with the appellant to save herself which resulted in breaking of her bangles. Fourth, had it been a case of catching of simple fire from the oven, then in such event, the smell of kerosene oil from the body of the deceased would not have been found on her body. Fifth, it is nobody’s case that the deceased tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her and then put herself on fire. Sixth, the relations between the appellant and deceased were not cordial. The appellant always used to demand money from the deceased which she was not in a position to give to the appellant. Seventh, had this been a case of accident as suggested by the defense then burn injuries sustained by the deceased would have been more on the lower part of her body rather on the upper part of the body because according to defense, the deceased was near to oven when her sari caught fire. The post-mortem report, however, showed that the burn injuries were more on her upper part and her blouse was found burnt. [Paras 38-46][48-F-H; 49-A-G]

2.2 In the absence of any plausible explanation given by the appellant and the one which was suggested but not having been proved and further keeping in view the circumstances, the manner in which the incident occurred and material seized from the room i.e. kerosene oil bottle, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was responsible for causing death of the deceased. In other words, her death was homicidal and not accidental. The evidence of four prosecution witnesses fully proved the case of the prosecution. In this view of the matter, even if, some witnesses might have turned hostile, yet it would be of no significance and nor it would adversely affect the case of the prosecution. [Paras 47, 49][49-G-H; 50-A, B-C]