Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, K. MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
Bontha Ramachandradu, Kurnool Dist. - Petitioner
Versus
Inspector of Police, Sirvel Circle, Kurnool Dist. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2015
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A,302, 307 read with 34 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 207, 209 , 313, 161 and 428 - Evidence Act - Section 32 - Offence of murder – Examination of accused – Attempt to murder - PW1 is the father of the deceased. A1 is the husband while A2 and A3 are parents-in-law of the deceased - Marriage of A1 with the deceased was performed about 10 years prior to the date of giving evidence. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.60,000/- and seven tulas of gold was given as dowry - A1 who got addicted to alcohol, used to beat the deceased everyday. Further, A1 to A3 used to harass the deceased for additional dowry - PW1 received a phone call from a neighbour of his daughter stating that A1 poured kerosene and set the deceased on fire and that A2 and A3 were also present at that time. PW1 claims to have rushed to Government Hospital, Nandyal, where he noticed the deceased with burn injuries - daughter narrated stating that as she could not bring additional dowry, A1 to A3 poured kerosene and set her on fire. PW1 corrects himself stating that, it was A1 who poured kerosene and set her ablaze, while A2 and A3 did not make any attempt to extinguish the fire. According to the oral statement of the injured, her neighbour took her to hospital in an auto.
Finding of the Court:
PW1, it was A1 to A3 who took the injured to Government Hospital at Nandyal and from there to Government Hospital, Kurnool, for better treatment. He was not treated hostile by the prosecution. If really there was any intention on the part of the accused to cause death of the deceased, the accused would have poured kerosene and set the deceased on fire, which they have not done. On the other hand, it was the deceased who herself poured kerosene and set herself on fire and then A1 is said to have set fire her blouse - accused took the deceased to the hospital. If really, they wanted the deceased to die, they would not have made any effort to take the deceased to the hospital. Initially they took her to Government Hospital, Nandyal and then to Government Hospital, Kurnool, for better treatment. Not only the evidence of PW1 but also Ex.P16 – the death intimation issued by the hospital, coupled with dying declaration made by the deceased before the Sub-Inspector of Police reflect the name of A2 as the person who took the deceased to the hospital - we are of the opinion that the conviction of the Appellant/Accused No.1 has to be scaled down to one under Section 304 Part-II of IPC - Appellant/Accused No.1 is convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
Result: Appeal is allowed partly.
JUDGMENT :
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
1. Assailing the conviction and sentences imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’], Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 341 of 2014 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, the first Accused preferred the present appeal.
2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that, A1 along with A2 and A3 caused the death of one Bontha Sulochana [‘Deceased’] on 19.07.2013 at Rudravaram Village, by setting her on fire.
3. The facts, which lead to filing of the appeal, are as under :
ii. The marriage of A1 with the deceased was performed about 10 years prior to the date of giving evidence. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.60,000/- and seven tulas of gold was given as dowry. Both of them lived happily for a period of two years and, thereafter, A1 who got addicted to alcohol, used to beat the deceased everyday. Further, A1 to A3 used to harass the deceased for additional dowry, which acts of harassment were being informed to PW1 on phone. It is said that, PW1 used to send provisions worth Rs.3,000/- every month to the house of accused.
iii. While things stood thus, on 19.07.2013 at about 7.00 p.m., PW1 received a phone call from a neighbour of his daughter stating that A1 poured kerosene and set the deceased on fire and that A2 and A3 were also present at that time. PW1 claims to have rushed to Government Hospital, Nandyal, where he noticed the deceased with burn injuries. When enquired, the injured – daughter narrated stating that as she could not bring additional dowry, A1 to A3 poured kerosene and set her on fire. PW1 corrects himself stating that, it was A1 who poured kerosene and set her ablaze, while A2 and A3 did not make any attempt to extinguish the fire. According to the oral statement of the injured, her neighbour took her to hospital in an auto.
iv. PW12 – who was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Government Hospital, attached to II Town Police Station, Nandyal, stated that on 19.07.2013 at 7.10 p.m., a patient, by name Sulochana, was admitted in Government Hospital. Basing on M.L.C. [Ex.P11] intimation, he proceeded to the hospital, observed the condition of the patient and found her conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give a statement. He claims to have recorded the statement of the injured, wherein, she stated that on 19.07.2013 at about 5.00 p.m., A1 came home in a drunken condition, abused her in filthy language, threatened her with dire consequences, poured kerosene and set her on fire. It is further stated that, A2 assisted A1 in the commission of offence. On hearing cries, the neighbours claim to have gathered and shifted her. The said statement is marked as Ex.P12.
v. On 20.07.2013 at about 6.00 p.m., PW14 – the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rudravaram Police Station, received M.L.C. intimation along with the complaint and statement of Sulochana/injured, from the Government Hospital, Nandyal. Basing on which, he registered a case in Crime No.87 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Ex.P14 is the First Information Report. On the next day i.e., 21.07.2013 at about 8.00 a.m., he went to Government Hospital, Kurnool, and recorded the statement of the injured – Sulochana and others. Thereafter, he went to Rudravaram Village at 4.00 p.m., and conducted a panchanama of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P7. He also drew a rough sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P15. At the scene, he seized M.O.1. After receiving the intimation of death on 27.07.2013, he altered the Section of law from 307 to 302 I.P.C. Further investigation in this case was taken up by PW15 – Inspector of Police, who on receipt of the altered F.I.R., verified the investigation done and then visited the Government Hospital,
Where there are more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of dying declaration could be held to be trustwor....
[A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be voluntary, coherent, and made in a fit mental state, even in the presence of minor inconsistencies.]
Dying declarations can be the basis for conviction if they are found to be truthful and voluntary; however, they must be carefully scrutinized, especially in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Dying declaration – In cases where Court finds that there exist more than one dying declarations, each one of them must be examined with care and caution and only after satisfying itself as to which ....
The court clarified the legal position regarding the admissibility of dying declarations and the interpretation of Explanation II to Section 299 IPC in cases of culpable homicide.
The Dying Declaration must be credible and corroborated; in this case, it was deemed unreliable due to contradictions and lack of supporting evidence.
The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
(1) Merely because there are two/multiple dying declarations, all dying declarations are not to be rejected.(2) There is neither a rule of law nor of prudence to the effect that a dying declaration c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
