IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, JJ.
Golla Nuggula Srinivasulu Sreenu, Kurnool Dist. – Petitioner
Versus
Inspector Of Police, Banaganapalli, Kurnool Dist. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.494 of 2016
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Offence of Murder - Charged - P.W.4 is daughter of deceased while P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined as eye witnesses to incident - It is said that house of A-1 to A-3 was situated opposite to house of deceased, who used to do cloth business and also conduct panchayats in the village as an elder - Husband of P.W.4 used to assist deceased in his business - There were disputes between P.W.3 and the accused with regard to parking of horse cart since last three years prior to giving evidence - Deceased used to advise them not to quarrel with each other and tried to pacify the dispute - About 20 days prior to the incident, on one day, A-1 is said to have parked his motor cycle in front of house of P.W.3, which lead to a quarrel between them - On hearing cries, deceased intervened and advised A-1 and A-2 not to park motor cycle in front of house of P.W.3. A-1 and A-2 are alleged to have threatened deceased with dire consequences warning him not to interfere with their matter - Whether prosecution has proved the guilt of A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt? - Held, Apart from that, specific role is attributed to A-2 in setting deceased on fire, which is not case of deceased at any point of time - In fact, failure to mention names of A-2 and A-3 in two dying declarations would not arise when they are known persons - It may be true that benefit of doubt was given to A-2 and A-3 and they were acquitted of said charge but question is whether A-1 can be convicted basing on material available on record - Court feel that it may not be safe to convict A-1 on material evidence adduced by prosecution, more so, when very role of A-1 is not being spoken to by deceased in his two dying declarations and also by two eye witnesses - It is to be noted that there is any amount of inconsistency even with regard to person who poured petrol and also person who set fire deceased. - For above said reasons, Court feel that it is a fit case where benefit of doubt can be given to A-1 and the judgment of trial Court is liable to be set aside - Criminal Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(C. Praveen Kumar, J.)
1. Originally, A-1 to A-3 in Sessions Case No.269 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal were tried on two charges. A-1 and A-2 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. while A-3 was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C.
2. Vide judgment, dated 08.06.2016, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting A-2 of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and A-3 of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., convicted A-1 of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. The graveman of the charge against the accused is that on 08.05.2012, at about 5.00 a.m., towards Illuru Kothapeta on Banaganapalli-Koilakuntla Road, Banaganapalli Mandal, 2 Kurnool District, the accused is said to have caused the death of one Pogaku Lakshmi Reddy (hereinafter, referred to as “deceased”) by pouring petrol and setting him on fire.
4. The facts in issue are as under:-
P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased while P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined as eye witnesses to the incident. It is said that the house of A-1 to A-3 was situated opposite to the house of the deceased, who used to do cloth business and also conduct panchayats in the village as an elder. The husband of P.W.4 used to assist the deceased in his business. There were disputes between P.W.3 and the accused with regard to parking of horse cart since last three years prior to giving evidence. The deceased used to advise them not to quarrel with each other and tried to pacify the dispute. About 20 days prior to the incident, on one day, A-1 is said to have parked his motor cycle in front of the house of P.W.3, which lead to a quarrel between them. On hearing the cries, the deceased intervened and advised A-1 and A-2 not to park the motor cycle in front of the house of P.W.3. A-1 and A-2 are alleged to have threatened the deceased with dire consequences warning him not to interfere with their matter. This incident was said to have been witnessed by P.W.4, who is none other than the daughter of the deceased. It is also said that the accused used to abuse and threaten the deceased whenever they come in contact with the deceased but the deceased used to ignore the same. On the date of incident i.e., on 08.05.2012, at about 4.30 a.m., the deceased is said to have gone out for a walk at Koilakuntla Road. It is said that A-1 also used to go out for walk on that road. P.Ws.1 and 2, who also claim to have gone for a morning walk, claimed to have seen the deceased going for a morning walk on Koilakuntla Road. When they reached the sub-station at Banaganapalli, the deceased came in opposite direction, crossed them and went away. They also claim to have seen A-1 to A-3 coming in opposite direction, wherein A-3 was found holding a plastic can, while A-1 was holding a small bucket. After crossing P.Ws.1 and 2, they heard cries of the deceased and when they turned back, they saw A-1 litting fire with a match stick and throwing the same on the deceased, setting his body on ablaze. Immediately, the deceased removed his clothes and threw them away. P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the scene and extinguished the fire with the help of gunny bags, which were available on the road side. A-1 to A-3, by raising cries as “Laxmi Reddyni Champanide Nidrapom”, went towards Kothapeta Village. Intimation about the incident was given to one Rama Subba Reddy (L.W.3) through cell phone. Then, L.W.4 along with one G.Chiranjeevi Achari (L.W.4) came to the scene of offence on a motor cycle and then, took the injured to Government Hospital, Banaganapalli. At about 6 a.m., the Sub- Inspector of Police, Banaganapalli, on receipt of M.L.C. intimation from Government Hospital, rushed to the hos
Evidentiary reliability of dying declarations affirms conviction; inconsistencies favor acquittal.
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....
Murder – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where eye witnesses to occurrence turned hostile and circumstantial witness also did not support prosecution case.
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.
The court established that acts committed in the heat of passion without premeditation constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, emphasizing reliance on credible dyi....
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.