1999 Supreme(AP) 576

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOTILAL B.NAIK, VAMAN RAO
Armugam Ramamma - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-02-99

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1908 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Evidence Act,1872 – Appeal Against Conviction - Offence of murder - imprisonment for life - James by pouring kerosene on his person and lit fire on him while he was sleeping on a cot - Resident is stated to have been living by prostitution - Deceased was working as a sanitary maistry in ICF Madras and originally was a resident of is the wife of deceased - According to prosecution deceased developed illicit intimacy with appellant and both were living together for more than months as wife and husband at prior to incident - Deceased used to go to Madras to attend his work in morning and return in evening to house of appellant-accused - Even after appellant and deceased were staying together appellant-accused did not change her attitude and continued to lead an immoral life - when deceased returned to house of appellant from Madras Court did not find appellant in house - When she returned deceased questioned her as to where she had gone for which appellant-accused adamently replied that deceased had no business to enquire about her movements - As deceased became an obstacle to her activity appellant designed to do away with life of the deceased - Accordingly around appellant poured kerosene on deceased and set fire while deceased was sleeping on cot - Deceased got up with flames and caught hold of appellant - However appellant ran out of house making alarming cries "save me - Save me" - Neighbours came out and found appellant with burn injuries and asked appellant as to what is cause of her injuries she did not reply - Whether prosecution has established guilt of appellant accused under Section 302, IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? - whether the conviction of the accused can be based on other circumstantial evidence? - Whether deceased could have spoken so loudly to enable those standing outside house to hear particularly Court of very serious burn injuries from head to toe which deceased had sustained - Whether statement was true does not arise for consideration - Is it a case that deceased though was able to speak did not want to speak toand the Head constable who questioned him? Did he have any special confidence in ? that he respondent to question of? - Held, Court respectfully regret that I am unable to agree with conclusions of brother hence my separate judgment - This appeal is directed against judgment of Sessions Judge Nellore rendered in under which accused/appellant has been convicted for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for lif - It absolutely clear that he was a stranger to deceased - In fact evidence discloses that other witnesses had to identify deceased as james to - Deceased himself was working at Madras leaving his house at tummur early in morning and returning late in the night - Court had hardly any opportunity to know evidence does not even disclose that he informed deceased that he was village Administrative Officer - Was a neighbour and must have been certainly known to deceased - A Head Constable who had gone there on duty must have been in his uniform - A Head Constable is a symbol of authority - Court view that physical condition of victim caused by complete burning right from inception till his death coupled with evidence that he failed to respond when attempts were made within a few minutes after incident and again hours later when Police came and that he was found in a conscious state in hospital by Doctor leads to irresistible inference that injured/ deceased was not at all in a position to respond much less to speak it is not sale to rely on mereipsi dixit of that victim was in a position to narrate incident - Accused had motive for committing murder of deceased - There is some material as to conduct of accused but except on question of motive trial court has not made any observation indicating that conduct of accused is a circumstance in support of proof of guilt of accused - Even in respect to oral dying declaration there is no specific discussion in judgment of trial Court as to various circumstances associated with alleged oral dying declaration appearing in evidence - Court considered view that prosecution has been able to establish guilt of accused under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and as such court below has rightly imposed conviction and sentence of life imprisonment on accused U/s. 302, Indian Penal Code - Ordered Accordingly