IMPORTANT POINT
There can be no second FIR in respect of the same offence/event and the subsequent information consequential of the first event can be incorporated in the first FIR.

JUDGMENT

Anil R. Dave, J. —

1) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No.579 of 2004 by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, confirming the order of conviction passed by the trial court, this appeal has been filed by the appellant who has been convicted under the provisions of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as under.

2) Chirra Shantha (the deceased) had strained family relations with her husband’s brother, the appellant. There was a family dispute with regard to a property wherein the husband of the deceased and the appellant were residing and the appellant wanted his brother Nagabhushanam to leave the property. It is alleged that the appellant used to regularly abuse the deceased and on 21st April, 1999, around 1.30 p.m., he had abused the deceased to such an extent that the deceased was fed up with the abusive language and so as to get rid of the appellant for the time being, she had poured kerosene on herself, believing that the appellant would go away because of her pouring kerosene on herself but while using abusive language, the appellant lit his cigarette and threw the lighted match stick on the deceased. As a result thereof, the deceased was in flames and the appellant left the place by further abusing her and telling that she should die.

3) At the time when the deceased was in flames, her husband, Nagabhushanam arrived and upon seeing his wife in flames, he immediately took her to the Government Civil Hospital, Nizamabad. Upon police being informed, R. Gangaram, Assistant Sub Inspector (P.W.11) rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. FIR No.46 of 1999 was filed on the basis of the statement made by the deceased against the appellant for commission of an offence under Section 307 of IPC. Looking to the nature of burn injuries suffered by the deceased, her dying declaration was recorded by Mr. Narsimha Chary, First Class Judicial Magistrate (Special Mobile Court), Nizamabad (P.W.10) around 8 p.m. The deceased specifically stated in the said statement that she was being abused by the appellant and on that day also, as usual, when she was being abused, she poured kerosene on herself and thereafter the appellant had thrown a lighted match stick on her, because of which she was in flames and she was severely burnt and her husband Nagabhushanam had brought her to the hospital.

4) Because of the burn injuries, the deceased suffered from septicemia and as a result thereof she died on 1st August, 1999. The said fact was brought to the notice of the authorities by the husband of the deceased. The said information was recorded as FIR No.152 of 1999 on 2nd August, 1999. As a result of the death of the deceased, the appellant was also charged under Section 302 of the IPC. At the time of the trial, most of the witnesses, who are family members of the deceased as well as the appellant, turned hostile. However, on the basis of the dying declaration (Ext.P.12) recorded on 21st April, 1999, which supported the contents of the FIR filed by the complainant, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for five years.

5) Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.579 of 2004, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. After hearing the concerned counsel and upon perusal of the record, the High Court confirmed the order of conviction passed by the trial court by the impugned order and the said order of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal.

6) Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly submitted that the trial court had substantially erred in convicting the appellant only on the basis of the dying declaration. He submitted that except the dying declara