Karnataka High Court Convicts Son For Assaulting 60 Yr-Old Mother Leading To Her Death, Says Deceased Had No Reason To Falsely Implicate Her Son

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an acquittal order passed by the trial court and convicted a son for offences under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, for assaulting and causing the death of his 60-year-old mother.

A division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda allowed the appeal filed by the state government and set aside the trial court acquitting Anil N B for the charge of murdering his mother Gangamma.

The bench said “The holistic appreciation of the evidence shows that the prosecution discharged its burden of proving that the victim suffered injuries due to the assault by the accused which led to her death. The appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court is contrary to the material on record, the circumstances of the case and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra. Hence the same is perverse or patently illegal.”

As per the prosecution case the accused due to his addiction to alcohol was not working and had become a burden to his parents. Gangamma was insisting he go to work. Being enraged by that on 04.04.2015, when Gangamma admonished the accused for his waywardness, the accused assaulted her with a club and kicked her causing her grievous injuries.

It is stated that PW.2 who is the sister-in-law of the deceased and PW.3 who is the neighbour of deceased Gangamma, rushed to the spot and rescued her from the hands of the accused. PW.2 shifted the victim in the ambulance to Sampaje Primary Health Centre. From there, she was referred to Sullia Community Health Centre.

There, PW.15 treated her and issued medico-legal intimation. Based on such information, PW.14 the Head Constable of Sampaje Out-post Station visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim as per Ex.P16. Then the victim was shifted to Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru. She breathed her last in the said hospital on 05.04.2015 at 4.45 a.m, it is alleged.

The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the eyewitnesses and other independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The Trial Court further held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the victim was in a fit condition to give a statement, the charge against the accused was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution in appeal argued that the dying declaration of the victim was proved by cogent and consistent evidence. It said that the mere failure of the doctor to certify fitness in dying declaration is not grounds to disbelieve the same. It istated that the evidence on record shows that the victim was fit to give a statement. Since the eyewitnesses and other independent witnesses are the close relatives of the accused and they have turned hostile to save him, Official witnesses had no ill-will against the accused. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence.

The bench referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Koli Chunilal Savji Vs. State of Gujarat, (1999) wherein it held that if the evidence on record satisfies that the victim was conscious and fit at the time of making the declaration, the medical certification with regard to the fitness shall not be insisted, though the Court has to be on guard in relying solely on such dying declaration. It was further held that dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction, provided that inspires the confidence of the Court.

Then it perused the evidence of the head constable who recorded the dying declaration and medical officer who treated the victim and said, "There were no suggestions either to PWs-15 or 14 that while giving a statement at Ex.P16, the victim was tutored. Contrary to his own defence, the accused suggested in the cross-examination of PW-15 that Police have recorded the statement of Gangamma and subsequently obtained the signature of PW-15 on the same, which he denied. Such suggestion indirectly implies the admission of recording of statement of Gangamma by the Police.”

The court also rejected the contention that the dying declaration of the victim was not corroborated by other witnesses. It said, “PWs-1, 2 (husband and daughter) and 10 (neighbour) are closely related both to the accused and the deceased.”

Refusing to accept the defence of the accused that the victim died due to suffering injuries caused due to alcoholic ulcers, the Court said “If the victim suffered injuries due to overconsumption of alcohol, then PWs-1, 2, 10 and the accused himself should have given such history in the hospital. They should have got her treated in the hospital, that would have been the natural conduct. There was no suggestion to PW15 that when the victim was brought to hospital she had consumed alcohol. Whereas, she was admitted by PW-2 in the hospital with the history of assault by the accused.”

Thus it held “Therefore, the aforesaid witnesses turning hostile did not bring any dent on the dying declaration. The Trial Court was in grave error in disbelieving the dying declaration on the ground that the same did not bear fitness certificate and the same was not supported by the eyewitnesses and the other family members of the victim.”

It added that the deceased is none else but the mother of the accused and she had no reason to falsely implicate him in the case.

Noting that external injuries and fractures were found in her (victims) body which was not explained by the accused. It said “The theory of she suffering such abdominal injuries due to overconsumption of alcohol was not probabilized by the accused. The accused has not taken up such a stand in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., nor offered any explanation for such injuries. Therefore, the said contention deserves no merit.”

Observing that the accused was addicted to alcohol and had become wayward, the Court noted that on the date of the incident also, the deceased admonished him not to come home drunk and that led to the incident. Therefore, the evidence on record goes to show that the accused had no intention to commit the murder of his mother, it held.

The court concluded “Acts of the accused attract the offence prescribed in the Second part of Section 304 I.P.C. and not Section 302 I.P.C. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of total acquittal suffers patent illegality and perversity. The appeal deserves to be allowed in part.”

Appearance: HCGP Thejas P for Appellant.

Advocate Padmavathi N for Respondent

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 227

Case Title: The State of Karnataka AND Anil N B

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.106/2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order