BEERE GOWDAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

                    (2010] 9 S.C.R. 211


                      BEERE GOWDA                                A
                              v.
                  STATE OF KARNATAKA
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1466 of 2005)
                       JULY 28, 2010
                                                                 B
     [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K; PRASAD, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860:

       s.302 - Father and step mother causing death of 2Yz       c
years old daughter from the first wife, by administering her
nitric and sulphuric acids - Acquittal by trial court of both -
Acquittal of step mother affirmed by High Court - But father
of deceased convicted u/s 302 - HELD: It is undoubtedly true
that if two views are possible and the trial court has recorded
                                                                  0
an acquittal, interference by High Court should be restricted
- However, in case High Court finds that the view taken by
 trial court was not based on the evidence, it would defeat the
ends of justice if the order was not set aside - The present
case falls under the category where High Court was fully
justified in interfering in the matter - The view taken by trial E
court was not justified to say the least - There is one strong
circumstance which has not been noticed by either of the
 courts below that nitric and sulphuric acids would not be of any
domestic use and would not be available as a household
 article - It has come in evidence that the acids had been F
obtained from PW. 17 and after the two acids had been mixed
 the concoction was put into the mouth of the child - High
 Court's observation that acid had been forcibly put into the
 mouth is based on the medical evidence as injuries were
 found all O~'er the body including the mouth, arms and the G
 chest which clearly showed that the child tried to save herself
 and fought back when the acid was being administered - As
 regards the parity claimed by the convict vis-a-vis the co-

                             211                                 H
    212      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A accused, matter has been dealt with by High Court and it has
    b~en observed that though there appeared to be some
    suspicion, but there is no concrete evidence of abetment of
    the murder by her as she had come to the house after the
    incident - Appeal dismissed.
B       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1466 of 2005.

        From the Judgment and order dated 26.11.2004 of the
    High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.
c   723 of 1999.

          Ajit Kumar Panda, (A.C.) for the Appellant.

         Ramesh Kumar Mishra, K. Joshi, Ramesh S. Jadhav and
    Vikrant Yadav (for Sanjay R. Hegde) for the Respondent.
D
          The following order of the Court was delivered

                                ORDER

       This appeal at the instance of the accused arises out of
E the following facts:

        Pallavi, aged two and half years, was the daughter of the
  appellant Beere Gowda and his first wife Jayanthi Gowda. The
  marriage between the appellant and Jayanthi had taken place
F about five or six years earlier. It appears that at the time of the
  marriage Jayanthi was pregnant but after some time the two
  fell out and the appellant left her in her parents' home promising
  to take her back after performing the marriage of his sister. A
  few days later however he performed a marriage with lndramma
G co-accused, since acquitted. After the marriage of the appellant
  and lndramma the relations between the appellant and Jayanthi
  became unpleasant and Jayanthi was often assaulted and was
  made to do all the household chores and was also compelled
  to undergo a Family Planning Operation at Kalsapura P.H.C.,

H
     BEERE GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                          213


as the appellant apparently did not want to have any child from       A
her. It is the case of the prosecution that as Pallavi was an
unwanted child, the two accused, thought it fit to get rid of her
so that she could not claim any share in her father's property.
The appellant accordingly obtained nitric & sulphuric acid from
PW.16 Ranganatha-Chari, a goldsmith, and it is further the            B
prosecution case that this was administered to Pallavi on 22nd
September 1996 which ultimately led to her death. An FIR was
accordingly lodged by Jayanthi PW.1 in which the above facts
were given in detail. The appellant who had in the meanwhile,
absconded was arrested on 26th September 1996 and on his              c
statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act a bottle
containing a mixture of the two acids was found from the
kitchen of his home. On the completion of the investigation the
appellant and lndramma were charged for offences punishable
under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC
                                                                      0
and as they denied all allegations they were brought to trial.

     The Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 28th April
1999 held that the greater possibility on the evidence was that
Pallavi had taken the acid by accident and that there was no
evidence to suggest that it had been administered to her              E
forcibly. The Court further. held that there was no evidence to
show that the two accused had in any way misbehaved with
Jayanthi prior to the murder. The Trial Court also observed that
the discrepancies inter se the statements of the witnesses went
to the root of the matter and as such there was a doubt as to         F
the truthfulness of the prosecution story.

     An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court. The High
Court has, by the impugned judgment, set aside the acquittal
of appellant No.1 while maintaining that of the second accused        G
and convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the
IPC, with a sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of
Rs.2000/- and in default six months R.I.

     It is in this situation the present appeal is before us.
                                                                      H
    214     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A       Mr. Ajit Kumar Panda, the learned amicus curiae for the
  appellant, has raised three arguments before us in the course
  of the hearing of this appeal. He has first pointed out that it was
  by now well settled that if two views were possible on the
  evidence and the Trial Court had chosen to take one view in
B favour of an accused it was not open to the High Court to take
  a different view, unless the judgment of the Trial Court could be
  said to be perverse although the High Court was entitled to
  reappraise the evidence in its entirety. It has also beer.
  submitted that the finding of the High Court that the acid had
c been forcibly administered to Pallavi was based on mere
  conjectures and did not emanate from the evidence. It has finally
  been urged that lndramma, the co-accused, having been given
  the benefit of doubt, the appellant ought to have been given the
  same benefit as well.
D      The learned State counsel has however pointed out that
  the Trial Court had completely ignored the fact that it was on
  the statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence
  Act that a bottle containing a mixture of nitric acid and sulphuric
  acid had been recovered from his house and the fact that it was
E not possible for the child to have consumed the acid
  accidentally was the only possible view on the evidence, was
  erroneous.

       We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned
F counsel for the parties very carefully. It is undoubtedly true that
  if two views are possible and the Trial Court has recorded an
  acquittal interference by the High Court should be restricted.
  However, in case the High Court finds that the view taken by
  the Trial Court was not based on the evidence, it would defeat
G the ends of justice if the order was not set aside. We are of
  the opinion that the present case falls under the category where
  the High Court was fully justified in interfering in the matter. The
  view taken by the Trial Court to our mind was not justified to
  say the least. There is one strong circumstance which has not
  been noticed by the either of the courts below but has been
H
      BEERE GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                     215


pointed out by the learned State Counsel, that nitric and           A
sulphuric acid would not be of any domestic use and would not
be available as a household article. It has come in evidence
that the acid had been obtained from PW.17 and after the two
acids had been mixed the concoction had been put into the
mouth of child. The High Court's observation that acid had been     B
forcibly put into the mouth is based on the medical evidence
as injuries had been found all over the body including the mouth,
arms and the chest which clearly showed that the child had tried
to save herself and had fought back when the acid was being
administered. It has rightly been pointed out by the High Court     c
that if the acid had been taken accidentally by the child there
would have been no burn injuries on other parts of the body as
they would have been confined only to the mouth and the lips.

     We also find no merit in Mr. Panda's arguments with
regard to the parity claimed vis-a-vis lndramma. This matter        D
has been dealt with by the High Court and it has been observed
that though there appeared to be some suspicion, but no
concrete evidence of abetment of the murder by her as she had
come to the house after the incident. We therefore find no merit
in this appeal.                                                     E

      Dismissed.

RP.                                         Appeal dismissed.