Karnataka High Court Upholds Life Term For Husband Who Set Man On Fire Over Suspected Affair With Wife
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a man convicted for the murder of his wife's colleague, upholding the life sentence imposed by the trial court. The accused, suspecting an illicit relationship between his wife and the deceased, arrived at a public location with petrol, doused the victim, and set him ablaze, resulting in the victim's death from burn injuries four days later. The court found that the act of arriving pre-equipped with petrol and a matchbox demonstrated clear intent to cause death. Affirming the reliability of the dying declaration recorded at the time of the incident, as well as the consistent testimony of multiple eyewitnesses present at the scene, the court found no grounds to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence.
The appeal arose from a conviction rendered by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The prosecution case was that the accused suspected his wife of having an illicit relationship with the deceased. It was alleged that about a month prior to the incident, the accused had threatened the deceased. On 20.10.2019 at about 9.30 a.m., in front of a tea stall near a petrol bunk within the jurisdiction of Kadugondanahalli Police Station, the accused allegedly poured petrol from a plastic can over the deceased and set him on fire. The deceased succumbed to burn injuries on 24.10.2019.
The law was set in motion based on the statement of the injured recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of a doctor. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, including eyewitnesses and witnesses to motive, and relied on documentary evidence including the dying declaration, post-mortem report, and FSL report. The defence contended that eyewitnesses were interested witnesses, that CCTV footage was not collected, and that the death was due to septicaemia. The appeal challenged both conviction and sentence.
The Bench framed the point for consideration as: “Whether the trial Court committed error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and imposing life sentence?”
On dying declaration, the Court observed: “While considering the dying declaration also, the Courts have to be extremely careful when they deal with a dying declaration as the maker thereof is not available for the cross-examination which poses a great difficulty to the accused person.” It further recorded: “A mechanical approach in relying upon a dying declaration just because it is there is extremely dangerous.” The Court stated: “The Court has to examine a dying declaration scrupulously with a microscopic eye to find out whether the dying declaration is voluntary, truthful, made in a conscious state of mind and without being influenced by the relatives present or by the investigating agency who may be interested in the success of investigation or which may be negligent while recording the dying declaration.”
After examining the record, the Bench recorded: “When such being the case, this Court cannot doubt the statement of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the Doctor.” It held: “Hence, this Court can rely on Ex.P6 as a dying declaration made by the deceased and the same was considered by the trial Court.”
On eyewitnesses, the Court stated: “There is no dispute with regard to the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 15, eyewitnesses. They have clearly stated about their presence at the spot, the accused pouring petrol and setting fire on the deceased.” It further recorded: “When eyewitnesses' evidence available before the Court, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the CCTV footage was not recovered or was not seized cannot be a ground and the same will not go to the very root of the case of the prosecution as these eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and they have withstood in the cross-examinations.”
On motive, the Court noted: “When these witnesses have categorically deposed before the Court the reason for the accused committing the murder that he was having suspicion about the fidelity of his wife, the trial Court accepted the reason of motive.”
On sentence, the Court recorded: “On perusal of the material available before the Court, it is very clear that the accused went to the spot with petrol can (bottle), match box, poured petrol and set fire on the deceased.” It further stated: “When such material is found, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no intention to take away the life of the deceased cannot be accepted.” The Bench added: “Further, the Courts have to take note of with regard to the sentencing policy and the sentence must commensurate with the gravity of the offence.”
“Criminal appeal is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Sparsh Shetty, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Rashmi Patel, High Court Government Pleader
Case Title: Asif v. State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: 2026: KHC:8117-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2072 of 2023
Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T
