1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2006

GOPAL ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT

J U D G E M E N T  

SIRPURKAR, J.

1. The  appellant  -  Gopal  challenges  his  conviction  

under Section 302 I.P.C. in this appeal.  The  allegation  

against the appellant-accused are  that on 29.12.1998 at  

about 5 p.m., he poured kerosene on the body of his wife  

Mallavva and set her on fire. It has come in the evidence  

that Mallavva was immediately taken to the hospital by PW-8  

Nagavva and PW-15 Sushila and she was treated by PW-5 - Dr.  

Noor Ahmed.  PW-5 is said to have intimated to the police  

station on which  PW-13 PSI Ravi came there and recorded  

her  dying  declaration.   In  that  dying  declaration,  the  

deceased has clearly alleged that the accused used to drink  

liquor and quarrel with her.  He also used to assault the  

deceased in a drunken state.  On 29.12.1998, accused  had  

given Rs. 200/- to her   for purchase of ration.  He  

immediately  took  back  Rs.  100  out  of  Rs.  200/-  .  She  

purchased the ration of the remaining amount of Rs. 100/-.

2

At about 5 p.m., on the same day, accused returned to the  

house and demanded Rs. 100/- from her.  Thereupon, the  

deceased told the accused that she had already purchased  

the ration but the accused asked her to return the ration  

and get him Rs. 100/- back.  On her refusal, the accused  

became angry and tied her  hands  and poured kerosene on  

her  body  and  set  her  ablaze.  On  19.1.1999,  Mallavva  

succumbed to the injuries.  

2. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

parties and gone through the record and judgments of the  

courts below.

3. We are  convinced that  the findings  of the  trial  

court  as  well   as  of  the  High  Court  that  this  dying  

declaration can be made the sole basis for the  conviction  

of  accused  is  a  correct  inference  drawn  by  the  courts  

below.   

4. We have ourselves examined the dying declaration.  

What impresses us is that there is solely no explanation by  

the accused anywhere as to how the presence of kerosene has  

been found on the brassiere, saree and petti-coat of the  

unfortunate lady.  We have seen the FSL Report – Exhibit  

P-25  for that purpose which endorses this fact.  It is not  

the defence of the accused that the death was suicidal or  

accidental. There is nothing on record even to entertain

3

such doubt.  The presence of kerosene residue on the inner  

and outer garments provides strong corroboration of the  

version in the dying declaration.

5.  It is true that  the witnesses, who carried the  

deceased  to  the  hospital,  turned  hostile  during  their  

examinations but that may not be an escape route  for the  

accused because the man may lie but the circumstances do  

not.  The circumstances in this case clinches the proof  

that it is the accused and accused alone who has committed  

this offence.  

6. Mr. Ram Lal Roy, learned counsel appearing  for the  

accused pointed out that the investigating officer did not  

make  any  attempt  to  get  recorded  the  second  dying  

declaration of the deceased  by a Magistrate.  It is really  

true.   It  would  have  been  better  if  the  investigating  

officer had made an attempt to get recorded the second  

dying declaration of the deceased  by a Magistrate. But, in  

our opinion, the dying declaration recorded by PW-13  and  

supported by PW-5 Dr. Noor Ahmed and  the  endorsement made  

by him to the effect  that the deceased was in a fit mental  

condition to depose before the police convinces  us that  

the dying declaration itself was a good dying declaration  

and could have been acted upon.

7. We  find  no  merit  in  this  appeal.   It  is,

4

accordingly, dismissed.

.....................J [ V.S. SIRPURKAR ]

.....................J [ T.S. THAKUR ]

NEW DELHI APRIL 19, 2011.