A husband convicted of murdering his wife by pouring kerosene on her and setting her alight challenged the High Court of Karnataka's reversal of his Trial Court acquittal. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the conviction under Sections 302 and 498A IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment (under s.302) and two years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- (under s.498A) were justified.
The Trial Court had acquitted the appellant on two principal grounds: first, that the bathroom where the incident allegedly occurred was too small to accommodate two persons; and second, that the deceased's dying declaration was unreliable because she had sustained 80–90% burn injuries and may not have been in a fit mental state to make a statement. The High Court reversed this acquittal, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's Criminal Appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence in their entirety.
The Court found the prosecution's evidence overwhelming and mutually corroborative. PW-3, the appellant's own sixteen-year-old daughter and an eyewitness, deposed that she saw her father fetch kerosene, pour it on her mother, and set her on fire. PW-4 (post-mortem doctor) confirmed death by septicaemia resulting from 85–90% antemortem burn injuries. PW-10 and PW-11, the treating doctors at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, both recorded that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state to make a statement; PW-11 personally endorsed Exhibit P-12 (the dying declaration) certifying her fitness. The dying declaration was recorded by Head Constable PW-15 at 02:00–02:30 a.m. on 21.07.2000 with the attending doctor's prior permission. Physical recovery of a kerosene tin, matchbox, and burnt cloth pieces from the scene (Exhibit P-1, proved by neighbour PW-6) further corroborated the prosecution case. The Court held that minor discrepancies in the statements of PW-7 and PW-16 — the latter being the investigating police inspector — could not override the consistent and credible evidence of the treating doctors and the eyewitness daughter. The appellant, on bail, was directed to surrender forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.