Back
2018 Supreme(AP) 577
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, Gudiseva Shyam Prasad, JJ.
Parikala Koteswara Rao – Appellant
Vs.
State of A.P., Rep by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1431 of 2011
Decided On : 06-08-2018
C. Sharan Reddy, Adv.
Headnote:
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction – Burn – Accused No.1 was the husband and accused No.2 was the mother-in-law of deceased that they resided in Nalgonda District for two years, during which period the deceased was blessed with one child; that when the deceased became pregnant for the second time, accused Nos.1 and 2 on suspicion that she has illegal contacts with PW.6, started harassing her without giving her proper food; that on information, PW.2- mother of deceased took the deceased along with her to her house; that the deceased gave birth to the second child, but the accused did not visit her; and both accused along with PWs.10 and 11 went to the maternal house of the deceased, negotiated with her and her parents in the presence of PWs.3 and 4 and took the deceased with them to their house – On the night while accused No.2, PW.10 and PW.11 were sleeping on the roof of neighbouring house, accused No.1 and the deceased were alone in their house; that accused No.1 again abused her in filthy language by suspecting her character; that the deceased slept in the late hours on that night; that at about 4.00 a.m., accused No.1 poured kerosene on her body, due to which the deceased woke up; that in the meantime, accused No.1 lit her with match box; that the deceased raised cries, on hearing which, accused No.2, PW.10, PW.11 and their neigbours reached there and witnessed the deceased burning; that accused No.1 poured water on the body of the deceased and tried to put off the flames; that PW.10 telephoned to 108 ambulance and shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital for treatment; and that on information, the parents and relatives of the deceased came to the hospital and enquired her about the incident – Held, When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the Court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But, if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt and that for that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy and that it follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi – As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for appellant that Kerosene smell was not noted in Ex.P.14-Scene Observation Report and in the evidence of PW.14, in our opinion, the same pales into significance once we accept Ex.P.23-Dying Declaration of the deceased. The plea that the death occurred on account of accident is belied by the recovery of MO.1- plastic can and MO.2- match box from the scene of offence. No explanation was offered by the defence as to the presence of these two material objects thereat – On a careful consideration of the evidence on record in its entirety, we are of the opinion that the Prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court – Criminal Appeal is dismissed.(Paras 25, 26, 27 and 28)
C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.652 of 2010 on the file of the Judge, Family Court cum-Additional District & Sessions Court, Ongole, filed this Criminal Appeal against Judgment, dated 08-12-2011, passed therein, whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of the same, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. For convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the Sessions Case.
3. The case of the Prosecution, as set out in the chargesheet, is briefly narrated hereunder:
Accused No.1 was the husband and accused No.2 was the mother-in-law of one Parikala Madhavi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased); that they resided in Nalgonda District for two years, during which period the deceased was blessed with one child; that when the deceased became pregnant for the second time, accused Nos.1 and 2 on suspicion that she has illegal contacts with PW.6, started harassing her without giving her proper food; that on information, PW.2- mother of the deceased took the deceased along with her to her house; that the deceased gave birth to the second child, but the accused did not visit her; and that on 19-09-2009, both the accused along with PWs.10 and 11 went to the maternal house of the deceased, negotiated with her and her parents in the presence of PWs.3 and 4 and took the deceased with them to their house in Tangutur Village.
4. That on the night of 20-09-2009, while accused No.2, PW.10 and PW.11 were sleeping on the roof of the neighbouring house, accused No.1 and the deceased were alone in their house; that accused No.1 again abused her in filthy language by suspecting her character; that the deceased slept in the late hours on that night; that at about 4.00 a.m. on 21.09.2009, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her body, due to which the deceased woke up; that in the meantime, accused No.1 lit her with match box; that the deceased raised cries, on hearing which, accused No.2, PW.10, PW.11 and their neigbours reached there and witnessed the deceased burning; that accused No.1 poured water on the body of the deceased and tried to put off the flames; that PW.10 telephoned to 108 ambulance and shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital for treatment; and that on information, the parents and relatives of the deceased came to the hospital and enquired her about the incident.
5. That on receipt of Ex.P.18- intimation, PW.17- Head Constable, Ongole II Town Police Station, visited the hospital, recorded Ex.P.19- statement of the deceased, and forwarded the same to P.W-19-Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur Police Station, on the point of jurisdiction; that PW.19 registered a case in Crime No.145 of 2009 under Sections 498(A) and 307 IPC of Tangutur Police Station on 21-09-2009 at 13.00 hours; that on receipt of Ex.P.16- Hospital Intimation, PW.16- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Ongole, visited the hospital and recorded Ex.P.23- Dying Declaration of the deceased; that while undergoing treatment, the deceased died at 1.50 p.m., on the same day; that on receipt Ex.P.25- death intimation, PW.19 altered the provision of Law from Section 307 IPC to 302 IPC and issued express FIRs to all the officers concerned.
6. That PW.20- Inspector of Police, S.Konda Circle, who received the express FIR, sent a requisition to LW.23- Tahsildar, Tangutur, to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased; that LW.23 and PW.20 visited the scene of offence in Tangutur on 22.09.2009 at about 6.00 a.m., inspected the scene of offence in the presence of PW.12 and LW.13- Vailala Sada Siva Sastry, seized the burnt pieces of the clothes belonging to the deceased along with a match box and kerosene tin under the cover of Ex.P.14- Scene Observation Report duly attested by PW.12 and LW.13; that thereafter, LW.23 and PW.20 went to the Government
