IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
The State of A.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Repalli Buchanna and Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 2015
Decided On : 14-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498, 302 r/w. Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 207, 209, 313 – Offence of Murder – Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman – Power to examine the accused – Accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases SCs & STs Act-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, were tried for offences punishable – Held, Court noticed flames from house of accused which is situated abuttingbhouse from road – Immediately – Court also noticed A.1 and A.2 near injured and both of them raising cries – Meantime, neighbouring persons also gathered and flames were put off by using water and gunny bags injured was shifted to Government Hospital – Court further admits that neighbours took injured to hospital again gives a different version stating that A.1 and A.2 also raised cries to save deceased/Pravallika and that both A.1 and A.2 participated in putting off flames on deceased and that both accused followed deceased in an Auto – No reliance can be placed on this witness due to inconsistent versions – Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that statement of witnesses to extent it corroborates case of prosecution can be believed – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
Accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.542 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, were tried for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 302 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, ‘I.P.C.”].
2. By its judgment, dated 19.01.2011, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused for the charges levelled against them. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant/State.
3. The substance of the Charge against the accused is that all the accused together subjected the deceased cruelty and thereafter A.1 and A.2 caused the death by pouring kerosene and litting her on fire and that A.3 was present along with A.1 and A.2.
4. The case of the prosecution, as seen from the evidence on record, is as under:-
(a) The deceased is the wife of A.3 and daughter of P.W.2. A.1 and A.2 are parents of A.3. The marriage between the accused and the deceased took place about a year prior to the incident. After the marriage, she joined A.3 and started living with him. On 12.05.2008 at about 10.30 a.m. while P.W.1-Head Constable was present in Taluq Police Station, Kurnool, he received a phone call from Government Hospital about the admission of the injured/Pravallika in the hospital. The Out-Post Constable said to have made a phone call as per the intimation received by him. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the hospital at 11.10 a.m. and received M.L.C. intimation [Ex.P1]. After receiving the intimation, he proceeded to Burns Ward at Government Hospital, where he found a woman with burns in the said Ward and the Doctors and the Nurses were also present there. He asked the relatives of the said Pravallika, who were present there to go out and thereafter he recorded the statement of the injured which was read over to her. As her both the hands were burned, P.W.1 obtained impression of her left toe. He also taken endorsement of the doctor to show the injured was in a fit state of mind to give a statement. Ex.P2 is the said statement. Basing on the said statement, he registered a case in Crime No.115 of 2008 under Sections 498-A, 307 I.P.C. Ex.P3 is the First Information Report [F.I.R.].
(b) On 12.05.2008 at about 2 p.m., P.W.12, who was working as II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, received a requisition for recording Dying Declaration of the injured. Accordingly, she proceeded to the Government Hospital, Kurnool and after identifying the victim woman, and on being satisfied that the deceased was fit to give the statement, recorded the statement of the injured. Ex.P16 is the Dying Declaration recorded by her. According to her, she also took the endorsement of the doctor, which disclosed that the deceased was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give a statement.
(c) On 12.05.2008 at about 1.30 p.m., P.W.16-Sub Inspector of Police was in Police Station, he received information from P.W.1 about the admission of the injured in the hospital and P.W.1 recording the statement of the injured, and also registering of a case. Immediately, he proceeded to the hospital and took up investigation. He also claims to have recorded the statement of the injured. According to him, he secured the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and also recorded the statements. From there, he proceeded to scene of offence where he prepared rough sketch, which is recorded as rough sketch under Ex.P20. He also seized half burnt pieces of saree, blouse, petty coat etc. from the scene. He also prepared an observation report of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P21 in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9.
(d) On 17.05.2008, P.W.14-Head Constable of Taluq Police Station, received death intimation of the injured, basing on which, he altered the Section of Law from Section 498-A, 306 I.P.C. to Section 302 r/w.34 I.P.C. Ex.P19 is the altered F.I.R.
(e) P.W.15-Inspector of Police, who on receipt of altered F.I.R. from P.W.14, he
Murugesan and 16 others vs. State Through Inspector of Police
Paparambaka Rosamma and other vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
A. Savithramma and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra
Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran
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....
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 presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal, and the prosecution must provide compelling evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving conflicting dyin....
Convictions based primarily on dying declarations are deemed unsafe without corroborative evidence, especially where doubts about the reliability of such statements exist.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.