Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM
Ongole Ravikanth
Versus
State of A.P.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.840-841 OF 2003
Decided on : 17-06-2009
(Para 14)
(1992)2 SCC 474, (1976)3 SCC 618; (1983)2 SCC 411; 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 118; 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 539; (2002)6 SCC 710; AIR 2008 SC 19–Relied upon.
Indian Penal Code, 1860–Section 304 Part I–Murder of wife–Appellant having illicit intimacy with other women creating tension and quarrel in married life–Appellant lighted-up match-stick knowing fully well that deceased had drenched herself with kerosene oil and fire may cause her death–Dying declaration made by deceased found to be credible–High Court took a very lenient view in convicting appellant u/s 304, Part I–Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 15 & 17)
Judgment :
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. The appellant has preferred these appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1613 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 1461 of 1998 whereby the High Court altered the judgment of conviction against the appellant, recorded under Section 324 IPC by the Sessions Court, Guntur in Sessions Case No. 274 of 1976. The High Court while setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that the deceased was married to the appellant in the year 1994 and led marital life for about 1 = years and gave birth to a daughter in 1995. It is alleged that even while living with his wife the accused developed illegal intimacy with other women and was found flirting with them and some times he used to bring those women to the matrimonial home. Naturally, the deceased raised serious objections as to the conduct of the appellant indulging in such immoral and objectionable activities. The appellant instead of mending his ways frequently used to taunt her saying that "you can also have a paramour if you want". On 11.1.1997 at about 9.00 p.m. when both the deceased and the appellant were in the bedroom, the accused switched on the tape-recorder; on that the deceased asked him to put off the same but the appellant did not stop it and on the contrary he slapped the deceased which led to a quarrel between them. The appellant mockingly suggested to the deceased to go away with someone of her choice and leave him alone. Having been hurt by the provocative words and the vulgar behaviour of the appellant she rushed into the kitchen and brought kerosene and a matchbox. She poured the kerosene on herself. The appellant obviously having snatched the match box from her lit the match stick and threw the same on the deceased resulting in severe burns to her vital organs of the body. Immediately, the deceased came out of the bedroom with flames crying loudly. On hearing the cries and on seeing her in flames, the father of the appellant and other neighbours poured water on her body and covered her with a bed sheet. In the meantime, the appellant arranged an auto and took her to her parents house in the same locality and from there she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur by her brother (PW-1).
3. On requisition from the Hospital authorities, the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur recorded her dying declaration in the presence of the Medical Officer. Based on the statement (Ex.P-4) the Police Station Pattabhipuram, Guntur issued First Information Report (Ex.P-16) and registered the same as Crime No. 2 of 1997 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 307 IPC against the appellant. While undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on 18.1.1997 at 4.45 p.m. in the Government Hospital, Guntur. Upon receiving information the police altered the provisions of law into Sections 498A and 302 IPC and accordingly issued the altered FIR. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 IPC.
4. The prosecution in order to establish its case against the appellant altogether examined 15 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-15) and 21 documents were got Exhibited (Ex. P1 to P-21). The appellant pleaded of his false implication in the case.
5. The learned Sessions Judge upon appreciation of the evidence available on record held that prosecution established its case beyond doubt that the appellant lit the match stick when the deceased herself poured kerosene on her body. However, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant had no intention to kill his wife. In the result, the learned Sessions Judge held that in the circumstances it cannot b
Smt. Paniben Vs. State of Gujarat (1992)2 SCC 474
K. Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. Vs. The Public Prosecutor (1976) 3 SCC 618
Darshan Singh @ Bhasuri & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 411
Kanchy Komuramma Vs. State of A.P. (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 118
Maniram Vs. State of M.P. (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 539
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.