Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. Praveen Kumar, B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, JJ.
T.M. Elumalai, Chittoor Dist. - Petitioner
Versus
P.P., Hyd. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2015
Decided On : 25-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 304, 498-A – Default of payment – Offence of murder – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Whether prosecution was able to bring home guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for offences punishable under Section 498-A & 302 I.P.C – Held, Fact that there were some disputes earlier which lead to mediations is not in dispute – It is also not in dispute that half an hour prior to incident, deceased called P.W.1 over phone and informed about harassment made by accused – After talking with P.W.1 over phone, accused came inside and addressed her as prostitute and questioned her stating “with which paramour she is talking” when she replied to him that if he harasses her again, she will go to her parents’ house, accused poured kerosene and set her on fire – Accused left place and came back on hearing cries – If really, intention of accused was to put off flames, his act would be immediately not after arrival of neighbours at his house – Only to prove his innocence, he might have made an effort along with neighbours who came there on hearing cries of deceased – Court feel that it is not a case to hold that conduct of accused indicate only knowledge and no intention to cause death – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.205 of 2011 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, “I.P.C.”] for causing the death of his wife by name R. Saranya on 18.01.2011 at 3.00 p.m. at his house in Dharmapuram Village.
2. By its judgment, dated 18.03.2015, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and he is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. In default of payment of above fine amounts, the accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Six months.
3. The facts, in issue, are as under :-
(b) On 18.01.2011 at about 2.50 p.m. the deceased telephoned to P.W.1 and informed that the accused beat and abused her as “EME LANJA EMINDA GADITHO MATLADUTHUNNAVU”. An hour later, P.W.1 came to know that her daughter sustained injuries. She went to the house of the accused, where she was informed that the injured was taken to Government Hospital, at Nagiri. Then, P.W.1 went to the hospital and found the injured with burnt injuries. When P.W.1 enquired, the deceased stated that “when she informed the accused about going to her parents’ house, the accused saying that he will kill her if she goes to her parents’ house, poured kerosene from her back side and lit fire.” From Nagiri hospital, the injured was shifted to SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati where she was treated for four days. On the fifth day, the injured died while she was being shifted to Chennai.
(b) On 18.01.2011 at about 3.45 p.m. P.W.15 who was incharge of Nagiri Police Station, received intimation about the admission of the injured in the hospital. Immediately, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured. Ex.P15 is the said statement. Basing on the said statement, he registered a case in Crime No.07 of 2011 under Sections 498-A & 307 I.P.C. Ex.P16 is the First Information Report [F.I.R.]. He again went to Nagiri Hospital, but however came to know that the injured was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. P.W.15 proceeded to the said hospital and again recorded the statement of the injured and also that of P.Ws.1 and 2.
(c) At this stage, it is to be noted that on 18.01.2011 at 6.10 p.m, P.W.12-Magistrate received a requisition from CMO, SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati, to which, she proceeded to the hospital, identified the injured and after being satisfied that the injured was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give a statement, recorded the statement of the injured. Ex.P11 is the statement of the injured.
(d) P.W.15, who was investigating the case, proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report of the scene in the presence of P.W.3. At the scene, he seized M.Os.1 to 4 unde
Dowry death – Conviction upheld - Prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court rightly convicted the appellant.
Dying declarations, if consistent and credible, can support a conviction without corroboration, as established by the court.
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....
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.
Dying declaration - Corroboration from the oral dying declarations made by the deceased, coupled with the evidence of Doctor.
Merely because, some superficial burn injuries were present on the fingers of the accused, it does not lead to any irresistible conclusion that he made efforts to put off the flames.
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
