Point of law : In the absence of the same, a doubt arises as to whether really P.W.1 is speaking the truth in the Court. It is not a case where P.W.1 was declared hostile having regard to his version in the F.I.R. Though a Dying Declaration is recorded by the Magistrate, nearly two days after the incident, but the earlier documents, more particularly, Ex.P1 and the evidence of D.W.1 coupled with the admissions of P.W.1 in his cross-examination, throws suspicion on the version recorded in the dying declaration.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 498-A and 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 207 and 209 - Harassment for money – Demand of dowry - Sessions Judge convicted Accused for the offences punishable - Accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC - Substantive sentences were directed run concurrently - marriage between the accused and the deceased took place about years prior to giving evidence in Court by PW.1. At time of marriage, PW.1, who is the brother of the deceased gave some cash jewellery and a cow to the accused as a dowry. Both of them lived together happily and they were blessed with one son and one daughter. Thereafter, the accused started harassing the deceased for additional dowry - He also got addicted to bad vices. It is said that the accused used to beat the deceased meet his demands. The same was informed by the deceased to PW.1. Mediations were conducted before the village elders where the accused promised to look after the deceased well, but in vain. It is stated that the accused started suspecting the character of the deceased and began demanding additional dowry.
Finding of the court :
Further, the evidence of D.W.1 (doctor) would reveal that the left thumb impression of the accused and his signature was taken on the relevant papers, which clearly indicate that the accused has brought the deceased to the hospital. This version of D.W.1 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, throwing suspicion on the prosecution case. Things would have been different, had the prosecution established motive or ill-will for D.W.1 to speak against the prosecution. In the absence of the same, a doubt arises as to whether really P.W.1 is speaking the truth in the Court. It is not a case where P.W.1 was declared hostile having regard to his version in the F.I.R. Though a Dying Declaration is recorded by the Magistrate, nearly two days after the incident, but the earlier documents, more particularly, Ex.P1 and the evidence of D.W.1 coupled with the admissions of P.W.1 in his cross-examination, throws suspicion on the version recorded in the dying declaration. The argument that the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate could be an outcome of tutoring cannot be brushed aside.
Result : Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

The appellant who is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.135 of 2010 on the file of the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, FAC-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC.

2. Vide judgment, dated 22.02.2013, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. The accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The substantive sentences were directed run concurrently.

3. The substance of the charge against the Accused is that on 29.09.2009 at about 2.00 P.M. in the house of the Accused at Thumbakuppam village of Bangarupalyam Mandal, caused the death of his wife by name Sujatha (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene, due to which, she sustained extensive burns and died on 03.10.2009 while undergoing treatment in Apollo Hospital, Aragonda.

4. The facts, in issue, are as under:

(i) The marriage between the accused and the deceased Sujatha took place about 13 to 14 years prior to giving evidence in Court by PW.1. At the time of marriage, PW.1, who is the brother of the deceased gave some cash, jewellery and a cow to the accused as a dowry. Both of them lived together happily and they were blessed with one son and one daughter. Thereafter, the accused started harassing the deceased Sujatha for additional dowry. He also got addicted to bad vices. It is said that the accused used to beat the deceased Sujatha to meet his demands. The same was informed by the deceased to PW.1. Mediations were conducted before the village elders where the accused promised to look after the deceased well, but in vain. It is stated that the accused started suspecting the character of the deceased Sujatha and began demanding additional dowry. On 29.09.2009 at about 2.00 p.m. Bharath Kumar (LW.3) called PW.1 stating that the deceased Sujatha, is struggling with burns. Immediately, PW.1 rushed to the spot and noticed the deceased Sujatha struggling for life. PW.1 accompanied by Ramesh, his cousin (examined as PW.4) along with other two persons shifted the deceased Sujatha to the hospital for treatment. In the hospital, the deceased Sujatha informed to PW.1 that as she refused to meet the demands, the accused poured kerosene and set her on fire. On 01.10.2009 at 2.00 P.M. P.W.1 is said to have presented the report before the PW.11-Sub Inspector of Police, which lead to registration of a case in Crime No.145 of 2009 under Section 498-A of IPC. Ex.P7 is the FIR. He examined PW.1 and recorded his statement. Thereafter, PW.11 proceeded to Apollo hospital and recorded the statement of the injured and others. From the Apollo hospital, he went to scene of offence, (a thatched hut) where he found partly burnt thatched hut and one empty kerosene tin inside the thatched hut. MO.1 is the plastic empty kerosene tin. The same was seized under the cover of mahazarnama, marked as Ex.P8. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence.

(ii) PW.11 returned to police station and altered the section of law to one under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC. Ex.P10 is the alteration Memo. On receipt of death intimation the section of law was altered from 307 IPC to 302 IPC.

(iii) Ex.P12 is altered express FIR. Further investigation in this case was taken by PW.12-the Inspector of police, who verified the investigation done till then and found it to be on correct lines. P.W.12 proceeded to Apollo Hospital and conduct inquest over the dead body in the presence of the mediators. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined PWs.1, 2, 8, 4 and 5 and recorded their statements. After completing the inquest proceedings, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(AP) 621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIC. Praveen Kumar, B. Krishna Mohan, JJ.G. Babu Rajendra Prasad, Kadapa., S/o. G. Chabdra Mouli – PetitionerVersusState of A.P., Rep PP., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor Hyderabad – RespondentCriminal Appeal No.1409 of 2014Decided On : 12-11-2021