- 1 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2150 OF 2018 (C)

BETWEEN:

SOMASHEKHAR @ SOMA @ APPI

S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO.120

S.V. LAYOUT, L. RAYASANDRA VILLAGE

SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

BENGALURU - 562 106.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI SHARATH J.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE

REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDITIONAL S.P.P.)

* * *

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF

THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND O RDER OF

CONVICTION DATED 27-8-2018 AND SENTENCE DATED 31-8- 2018

PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS J UDGE,

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, IN SESSIONS CA SE

NO.137 OF 2014, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FO R THE

OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVE D

ON 5-1-2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,

VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

- 2 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T.)

The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal

challenging the judgment of conviction dated 27-8-2 018 and

the order of sentence dated 31-8-2018 in Sessions C ase

No.137 of 2014 on the file of the IX Additional Dis trict and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru , for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short, 'IPC').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to as per their ranks before the trial Cou rt. The

appellant is the accused and the respondent is the complainant-

State before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the

accused had illicit relationship with one Savitha (hereinafter

referred to in as 'deceased') for about one and half-a-year prior

to her death. The father and the mother of the accused came to

know about their relationship and in this regard, in the absence

of the accused, on 1-3-2014, they visited the house of the

deceased at Vittasandra Village, where the deceased and the

- 3 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

accused lived together and they objected her illicit relationship

with their son. On the next day, i.e. on 2-3-2014 at 8:00 a.m.,

when the accused visited the house, the deceased informed the

accused about arrival of his parents to the house and objection

to their relationship and in this regard, there was scuffle

between him and the deceased. In the said scuffle, the accused

got enraged and with an intention to eliminate the deceased,

took kerosene, poured on her, set her ablaze and ra n away

from the house. As a result, the deceased suffered severe burn

injuries on her person and she was shifted to Victoria Hospital,

Bengaluru, by her neighbours, PWs.2 and 3. When the

deceased was under treatment on 2-3-2014, she gave her

statement-Ex.P7 (dying declaration) before PW9-Moha n Kumar,

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Electronic City Police Station,

Bengaluru, in the presence of PW10-Dr. Priyadarshini N. Based

on said statement, the jurisdictional Police registered a case

against the accused for the offence punishable unde r Section

307 of IPC and on the following day of the incident at

8:00 a.m., the injured succumbed to burn injuries. Hence, the

Investigating Officer incorporated Section 302 of IPC. During

the course of investigation, the accused was arrest ed. The

Investigating Officer, recorded the statements of the witnesses,

- 4 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

visited the scene of offence and after conclusion o f the

investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in a ll

examined twelve witnesses as PW1 to PW12, got marke d

eleven documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and three m aterial

objects were marked as per MO1 to MO3. For the def ence, the

mother of the accused was examined as DW1.

5. On assessing the entire evidence, the trial Cour t,

convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section

302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonmen t for life

with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and

while convicting the accused, the trial Court mainly relied on

the evidence of PW9-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Poli ce, who

recorded the dying declaration-Ex.P7 in the presence of PW10-

Dr. Priyadarshini N., and also medical evidence of PW7-

Dr. Pradeep Kumar, who conducted Post-Mortem examin ation

as per Ex.P6 on the dead body of the deceased, and the

evidence of PW12-FSL Officer, reached the conclusion that the

accused has committed the aforesaid offence.

- 5 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

6. Assailing the findings of the trial Court,

Sri Sharath J.M., learned counsel for the appellant /accused,

would contend that the judgment and order of convic tion and

sentence passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with

law; the alleged eyewitnesses, i.e. PWs.1, 2 and 3, are the

neighbours of the deceased. During their chief-exam ination,

they have deposed that they do not know who set fir e on the

deceased and they have not seen the accused at the scene of

occurrence, but the prosecution has quoted these witnesses as

eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, wherein these witnesses

have not supported the case of the prosecution; dur ing the

cross-examination of PWs.4 and 5, i.e. the mother a nd the

sister of the deceased, they have deposed that the deceased

was not conscious when they visited the hospital an d the

deceased was also not in a position to speak. Moreo ver, the

motive is also not established, as these witnesses are the best

persons to say about the illicit relationship between the accused

and the deceased, but there is no whisper about the alleged

illicit relationship between the accused and the deceased. He

would further contend that the case of the prosecution is that

though the parents of the accused are stated to hav e

threatened/abused/objected the deceased about her i llicit

- 6 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

relationship with their son, but PW11-Investigating Officer

neither recorded their statements nor made them as witnesses

to give evidence and this creates serious doubt in the mind of

the Court.

7. Further, the learned counsel would contend that during

the chief-examination, PW9-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police

has deposed that he recorded the alleged dying declaration of

the deceased in the presence of Dr. Nandini i.e. CW 16,

however, her actual name is Dr. Priyadarshini N. It is pertinent

to note that, as per the charge-sheet material, the prosecution

has cited the name of CW16 as Dr. Nandini, which cr eates

serious doubt, in whose presence, the dying declara tion was

recorded. Further, the alleged dying declaration is not in

accordance with the prescribed format as laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. Further, PW9 has not

given any valid reasons as to why he did not call the nearby

Executive or Judicial Magistrate while the deceased was

admitted to Victoria Hospital at 10:00 a.m., but th e alleged

dying declaration was recorded between 4:45 and 5:1 5 p.m.

and there was nearly eight hours time gap to record the dying

declaration, hence, the alleged dying declaration is cropped up

for the purpose of this case. Thus, the prosecution has utterly

- 7 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

failed to prove the alleged dying declaration, however, the trial

Court solely relied upon the alleged dying declarat ion and

wrongly convicted the accused, which is contrary to law. The

Investigating Officer has not recorded the statemen t of the

owner of the house, where the deceased was residing . Further,

the Investigating Officer has not produced the phon e call

details and any incriminating evidence to show that the accused

had illicit relationship with the deceased at the relevant point of

time. Hence, the Investigating Officer has failed to investigate

the case properly, but the trial Court relying on the report of

the Investigating Officer has convicted the accused. Therefore,

the findings recorded by the trial Court are incorrect and hence,

the appeal deserves to be allowed.

8. Per contra, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional

State Public Prosecutor appearing for the responden t-State,

would contend that the accused has not disputed the death of

the deceased, who died due to burn injuries. The en tire

prosecution case rests upon the dying declaration-E x.P7 and

the medical evidence. The prosecution witnesses, such as, PW9

has stated about the dying declaration recorded by him as per

the statement given by the deceased in the presence of PW10

and PW10-Doctor has certified about the mental and physical

- 8 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

fitness of the deceased to give statement. It is contended that

PWs.2 and 3 have seen the burn injuries on the pers on of the

deceased, they shifted the injured to the hospital for treatment

and to that effect, they have supported the case of the

prosecution. Further, the spot, inquest and seizure mahazar

witnesses have supported the case of the prosecutio n. It is a

fact that the accused and the deceased were in illi cit

relationship and thus, the parents of the accused visited the

house of the deceased and objected their relationship, due to

which, the deceased denied the accused to enter her house.

Thus, there was scuffle between the accused and the deceased

and the accused being enraged by the act of the dec eased,

poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and s et her

ablaze. She would further contend that the Investigating Officer

conducted mahazar in the house of the deceased, whe re he

seized kerosene bottle, bed-sheet and match-box vide MOs.1 to

3 under mahazar-Ex.P1. The recovery of MOs.1 to 3 i s also

proved. The Post-Mortem report-Ex.P6 shows the burn injuries

on the deceased and the Doctor opined that the death is due to

shock as a result of burn injuries sustained. These are the facts

which were weighed by the trial Court to hold that the

circumstances stood proved against the accused and hence,

- 9 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

she submits that there are no reasons to interfere with the

judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court.

9. Considering the submissions of both side and

examining the material on record, the point that arises for our

determination in this appeal is as under:

Whether the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence is sustainable?

10. The relationship between the deceased and the

accused is disputed. As rightly pointed out by the learned

counsel for the accused, there was no eyewitness to the

incident. The case was based on circumstantial evidence. The

circumstances relied on by the prosecution are as follows:

i.

Nature of death of the deceased (homicidal death),

ii.

Motive,

iii.

Last seen circumstance, and

iv.

Dying declaration of the deceased.

Reg: Nature of death of the deceased (homicidal

death)

11. To prove that the death of the victim was homic idal

one, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who

have stated that on 2-3-2014, in the morning, the d eceased

- 10 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

suffered burn injuries, thus, she was shifted to the hospital for

treatment, and on 3-3-2014, she succumbed to burn i njuries.

PWs.4 and 5, the mother and the sister of the decea sed,

respectively, saw the dead body of the deceased in the

hospital. To corroborate the testimony of PWs.1 to 5, the

prosecution examined PW7-Dr. Pradeep Kumar, who con ducted

Post-Mortem examination on the dead body of the dec eased

and issued his report as per Ex.P6. As per the evidence of PW7

and Ex.P6-Post-Mortem report, the deceased had suff ered the

following injuries:

"External Appearance

1. Condition of Subject: Stout, emaciated, decomposed,

etc.

2. Wounds: Position, size, character.

3. Fracture, dislocation etc.

4. Mark of ligatures on neck.

Dead body is that of a female measuring 155cm in length,

moderately built. Rigor mortis present all over the body.

Post mortem staining could not be appreciated due t o

burn injuries, Floeys Catheter present. Blue ink ma rk

present over left thumb. Injection mark present over back

of left wrist.

Second and third degree burn injuries present over face,

neck, front, sides and back of chest. Both upper limbs

- 11 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

including palms, front, sides and back of abdomen i n

patches sparring external genitalia, both the thighs in

front and sides. Upper and lower lips are involved in

patches. Areas of redness and blackening present at

places over burn injuries. Scalp hair and body hair are

singed.

Fractures Dislocation/More detailed description of injury

or disease:

80%-85% of total body surface area are covered by ante-

mortem burns.

Opinion as to cause of death: Death is due to shock as a

result of burns injuries sustained."

The Doctor opined that the death of the deceased wa s

due to 80-85% burn injuries. From perusal of the ev idence of

PW7-Doctor, it clearly establishes that the deceased died on

account of burn injuries sustained in the incident. Therefore,

the prosecution proved that the death of the deceas ed is

homicidal.

Reg: Motive

12. According to the prosecution, the accused had illicit

relationship with the deceased. Thus, the parents o f the

accused came to the house of the deceased, abused h er and

also threatened not to continue her relationship with their son.

Hence, the deceased objected the accused for visiti ng the

- 12 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

house and in that regard, there was scuffle between the

deceased and the accused and being enraged by the a ct of the

deceased, he poured kerosene and lit fire on her. None of the

witnesses have deposed about this aspect. Neither the

neighbours of the deceased, nor the parents of the deceased

have stated about the motive. Motive is a double e dged

weapon, which may lead to false implication or comm ission of

crime by one rival party against the other rival pa rty.

Therefore, motive is to be proved by leading corrob orative

piece of evidence. Unless other circumstances are proved, only

based on motive circumstance, conviction cannot be placed.

Reg: Last seen circumstance:

13. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.2

and 3, neighbours of the deceased. As per the case of the

prosecution, on 2-3-2014, in the morning, the deceased raised

hue and cry with burn injuries on her person and immediately,

the accused came out from her house. Whereas, PW2 h as

stated that about two and half years ago on the date of alleged

offence, he was doing compound work of his house, a t that

time, the injured, Savitha, screamed from her house and the

house of said Savitha was about 10 feet from his house and on

- 13 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

hearing such sound, he saw Savitha coming out of he r house

screaming "Gj Gj" and thus, he informed the Police Station and

the injured was given first-aid. The injured was sh ifted to

hospital for treatment. He specifically stated that, he has not

seen the accused. Thereafter, the mother of the injured came

to the house and enquired him about one Somu, sayin g that

said Somu is the husband of the injured, but he ple aded

ignorance about Somu and for rest of the suggestion s, he

pleaded ignorance. Thus, the prosecution treated him as

hostile witness and permitted to cross-examine. In the cross-

examination, he denied the suggestion that, 'when he visited

the house of the injured upon hearing her hue and cry, he saw

one person running from said the house, he chased t he said

person, enquired him and disclosed his act'. He further denied

the suggestion that, 'when the Police called him to the Police

Station and showed the accused, he identified him'. Therefore,

the evidence of PW2 is of no help to the case of the prosecution

in order to prove the motive as well as the presenc e of the

accused at the scene of occurrence.

14. In so far as the evidence of PW3 is concerned, he has

stated that the house of the deceased is situated opposite to

his house. In the year 2014, there was crying sound from the

- 14 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

house of the deceased and upon hearing crying sound , he went

there, some public had gathered and one lady in the said house

suffered burn injuries. Somebody rescued her by cov ering

blanket and thereafter, she was shifted to Victoria Hospital.

Thereafter, the mother and the sister of the injured visited the

hospital. He further stated that he does not know the reason

for the said incident and he did not see the accused on the spot

and he has not stated before the Police about witnessing of the

accused at the spot. Hence, the prosecution treated even this

witness as hostile witness and was permitted to cross-examine.

In the cross-examination, he categorically denied t he

suggestion that, 'when he visited the house of the injured upon

hearing her hue and cry, he saw one person running from said

the house, he chased the said person, enquired him and

disclosed his act'. He further denied the suggestion that, 'when

the Police called him to the Police Station and sho wed the

accused, he identified him'. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 is

also of no help to the case of the prosecution to connect the

accused to the crime. Thus, the last seen witnesses i.e., PWs.2

and 3 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and

they do not depose anything before the trial Court that as soon

they came to the house of the deceased, they saw the accused

- 15 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

running out from the house. Hence, the last seen theory relied

on by the prosecution creates doubt and therefore, the

evidence of PWs.2 and 3 are of no avail to the case of the

prosecution.

Reg: Dying declaration of the deceased:

15. The trial Court mainly relied upon the dying

declaration made by the deceased. A dying declarati on is a

statement, written or spoken, made by a person who believes

they are about to die, explaining the circumstances or cause of

their impending death, and is admissible as evidenc e in the

Court, because it is presumed they would speak the truth when

facing death. This statement provides crucial information when

the person is deceased and cannot testify, forming a key piece

of evidence in cases where their death is under question, such

as murder or accidental death.

16. PW4-Shobha and PW5-Sangeetha, mother and sister

of the deceased, are hearsay witnesses. They have stated that

15 days prior to the death of the deceased, she was residing

with the accused. It is their further evidence that after the

incident, the neighbours of the deceased informed t hem that

the deceased was set fire by pouring kerosene and they shifted

- 16 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

her to Vanivilas Hospital, Bengaluru. Thus, they we nt to

Vanivilas Hospital and they saw the victim, who was under

treatment. The victim's body was fully burnt and sh e was

speaking. Thus, they enquired her. The victim informed them

that, "when she was alone, in her room, the parents of the

accused, visited her room and objected her relation with the

accused and after they leaving, when the accused vi sited the

room, she informed him about objections raised by his parents

and in the said conversation, there was quarrel between them

and the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire , hence,

she sustained burn injuries". They were treated as partly

hostile witnesses and permitted to cross-examine.

17. In the cross-examination, they have admitted th at

when they visited the hospital, the victim was not in a position

to speak and she had not spoken anything with them. They

further admitted that when the neighbours informed them

about the incident, the neighbours have not stated the name of

the person who set fire. They further admitted that on

4-3-2014, when they visited the Police Station, they have not

seen the accused in the Police Station, they saw the accused

before the Court for the first time and they catego rically

- 17 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

admitted that they do not know who was responsible for the

death of the deceased.

18. The prosecution further relied upon the evidence of

PWs.9 and 10. PW9-Mohan Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspec tor of

Police, has stated that on 2-3-2014, he took the statement of

the deceased in Victoria hospital in the presence of Dr. Nandini.

He further stated that he obtained left and right t humb

impression of the deceased to the dying declaration, but in the

cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not specifically

mentioned the thumb impression as either right thum b or left

thumb and has failed to recognise the same.

19. PW10-Dr. Priyadarshini N., Casualty Medical Officer,

Victoria Hospital, has stated that on 2-3-2014 at

4:45 p.m., she was also present while recording the statement

of the victim/deceased and the deceased was in a fit condition

to give statement. In the cross-examination, she has admitted

that she does not know at what time the deceased wa s

admitted to the hospital and what was administered to her. She

clearly admits that before recording the statement of the

deceased, she has not thoroughly checked blood pres sure,

pulse rate and heart rate and the same has not been

- 18 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

mentioned in the dying declaration before recording the same.

The prosecution has not at all placed case-sheet of the

deceased. She further admits that she has not consu lted the

Doctor, who treated the deceased. She further admits that she

has not signed the memo which was brought by PW9-As sistant

Sub-Inspector of Police and did not verify any records to know

the percentage of burns sustained by the deceased.

20. So far as dying declaration is concerned, the

prosecution relied upon Ex.P7. On perusal of Ex.P7, it goes to

show that the same was recorded by PW9-Mohan Kumar,

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, in the presence of PW10-

Dr. Priyadarshini N. on 2-3-2014 between 4:45 to 5: 15 p.m.,

who certified that statement of the deceased was taken before

her and the deceased was conscious till the end of recording

her statement. The contents of Ex.P7 appear to be i n

descriptive manner.

21. It is well settled law that a dying declaration should

preferably be in question and answer form and as fa r as

possible, the exact words uttered by the injured mu st be

reproduced. It is, therefore, much safer to keep th e dying

declaration short, concise and to the point and to pen down the

- 19 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

questions and answers that have to be elicited from the

declarant. In the instant case, PW9 recorded the statement of

the deceased, which is in the form of dying declaration, which

runs into two pages.

22. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the dyin g

declaration. As per Section 32 of the Indian Evide nce Act,

1872, there can be no dispute that the dying declaration can be

the sole basis for conviction. However, such a dying declaration

shall prove to be wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful; the

maker thereof must be in a fit condition to make it.

23. Ex.P7-dying declaration recorded by PW9 shows t hat

the deceased had suffered severe burn injuries and was

admitted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, and she answered the

questions posed by him. The contents of Ex.P7 do no t indicate

the mental and physical condition of the deceased and PW10-

Dr. Priyadarshini N. has admitted that she cannot tell that what

was administered to the deceased on that day. PW10 has not

mentioned blood pressure rate, pulse rate, and hear t beat in

the Certificate and she has also not mentioned abou t the

Doctor, who treated the deceased. She further stated that she

was not expert to treat burn patient and she did not consult the

- 20 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

Doctor, who treated the deceased. Further, she has not

examined any record to know the percentage of burn injuries

on the deceased.

24. Thus, PW10 has not certified as to whether the

deceased was fit to give statement before PW9, exce pt her

presence while recording the dying declaration. Mor e

particularly, the duty Doctor, who treated the deceased, was

not examined by the prosecution. Dr. Nandini (CW16) shown as

charge-sheet witness, but PW10-Dr. Priyadarshini N. was

examined. Further, the Doctor who treated the dece ased

initially has not been examined. The prosecution also failed to

produce the case-sheets of the deceased before the trial Court.

25. The evidence of PW9-Assistant Sub-Inspector of

Police and PW10-Doctor creates doubt about recordin g of the

same and fitness of the deceased to make such decla ration in

view of the evidence of PW10.

26. Dying declaration is very important aspect as i t

amounts to a statement of the deceased verbatim. Ex .P7-dying

declaration in this case cannot be treated as wholly trustworthy

as it is shrouded with doubts. There can be no disp ute that

dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, however,

- 21 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

such a dying declaration has to be proved to be wholly reliable,

voluntary and truthful and the maker thereof must b e in a fit

condition to make it. As per the evidence of PWs.9 and 10, the

deceased made oral dying declaration, however, PWs. 4 and 5,

mother and sister of the deceased, have stated that as soon as

they visited the hospital, the deceased was not in a position to

give any statement and she did not speak with them, which

goes to show that the deceased was not in a fit con dition to

make any statement. When the injured had suffered 8 5% burn

injury, it creates doubts as to whether she was abl e to give

statement and to that extent, no material is placed.

27. It is settled law that if the dying declaration is

truthful, it can lead to conviction. In the light of the above

principles, we have examined the dying declaration. A doubt

arises in the mind of the Court as to mental and physical fitness

of the deceased to give statement, as the deceased had

sustained extensive burn injuries on various parts of her body

including face and lip and despite this condition, the statement

of the deceased was allegedly recorded. PWs.9 and 1 0 being

responsible official witnesses said to have recorded the dying

declaration of the deceased, which creates suspicion and the

manner of recording the dying declaration appears t o be

- 22 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

doubtful. The trial Court ought to have assessed the evidence

of PWs.9 and 10 in strict sense keeping in view Section 32 of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, however, lost sight of their

evidence.

28. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of JAYAMMA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1

has

addressed the scope of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872, and observed that the conviction of the accused cannot

be upheld only on the basis of the dying declaration.

29. From the overall evidence of the prosecution

witnesses, it transpires that PWs.1 to 3 being the neighbours of

the deceased have stated about the incident that the deceased

sustained burn injuries and the fact about shifting her to the

hospital for treatment and her death on account of burn

injuries, but they have not stated that it is the accused, who

caused the death of the deceased. Hence, PWs.1 to 3 are not

eyewitnesses to the incident, but they are chance witnesses, as

they came to the scene of offence after the occurrence of the

incident. Thus, their evidence is of no avail to the prosecution.

1

Live Law 2021 SC 251

- 23 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

30. The trial Court relied upon the testimonies of PWs.4

and 5, mother and sister of the deceased, respectively, who are

hearsay witnesses. They have stated about the role played by

the accused in their chief-examination, however, in the cross-

examination, they have given clear go-bye to their depositions

made in chief-examination that the accused caused t he death

of the deceased and at the time of incident, the accused was

present in the house of the deceased.

31. From the above evidence on record, can it be sa id

that the presence of the accused in the house of the deceased

on 2-3-2014 at 8:00 a.m., has been firmly and cogen tly

established. According to us, the answer must be in 'Negative'.

There are several omissions that have been brought out in the

cross-examination of PWs.4 and 5, which seriously d ent the

credibility of their testimonies.

32. The main principle to be satisfied in a case of

conviction based on circumstantial evidence is that the proved

circumstances must be complete and incapable explan ation of

any hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused. All the above

aspects, when seen in the context of the case being dealt with

by us, a case of circumstantial evidence, it would be difficult to

- 24 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

connect the accused to the crime. The chain of eve nts being

sought to be projected is laden with deficiency cre ating

significant gap, leading to other possible hypothes is as

aforementioned. Due to such missing links, the finding of guilt

cannot be recorded. In this light, the guilt of the accused has

not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the imp ugned

judgment is, thus, liable to be set aside, as the trial Court lost

sight of each chain link to establish the charges leveled against

the accused and it requires interference since the same is not

sustainable in the eye of law to come to a definite conclusion

that it is the accused who set ablaze the deceased. Hence, we

pass the following:

O R D E R

i.

The appeal is allowed.

ii.

The judgment of conviction dated 27-8-2018 and the

order of sentence dated 31-8-2018 in Sessions Case

No.137 of 2014 on the file of the IX Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural district,

Bengaluru, is hereby set-aside.

- 25 -

CRL.A NO.2150 OF 2018

iii. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the charge for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860. He shall be set at liberty forthwith,

if his detention is not required in any other case.

iv.

Order of the trial court with regard to disposal of the

properties is maintained.

Communicate a copy of this order to the trial Court along

with its record, and the concerned Prison, forthwith.

Sd/-

(H.P.SANDESH)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(VENKATESH NAIK T)

JUDGE

KVK