IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, JJ.
Shaik Nizamuddin - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2017
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Homicidal Death - IPC - 302 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 302 IPC. He was acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC of committing murder of the deceased, his wife. The deceased sustained burn injuries and succumbed to the same. The appellant challenged the legal validity of the said judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
Issues: Whether the deceased met with a homicidal death, whether the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze and whether the accused is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased, and whether the case falls under 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC and whether the sentence is required to be modified accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The medical evidence completely ruled out the contention of accidental death. The accused's false explanation and the deceased's dying declaration pointed to his guilt. The court held that the accused committed murder of the deceased and the case did not fall under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction of the trial Court.
JUDGMENT :
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C No.153 of 2014 on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 302 IPC. He was not found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and he was acquitted of the said charges. However, he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC of committing murder of the deceased, who is his wife. He was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. Aggrieved thereby, the instant Appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the legal validity of the said judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Facts of the prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows:
3. The deceased is the legally wedded wife of the accused. Their marriage was solemnized about nine years prior to her death. It is stated that they have lived happily for some time and thereafter the accused having been addicted to consuming alcohol started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally demanding additional dowry from her and also demanding her to give money for the purpose of consuming alcohol. Even though the parents of the deceased used to give money to him on some occasions, he continued to harass the deceased. It is stated that as there was no change in his conduct and attitude, the parents of the deceased brought both the accused and the deceased to Tadipatri where the parents of the deceased are living. The deceased and the accused started living in Tadipatri and used to attend the work in Ramanath Slab Polishing Factory. They have been residing in a room provided in the said factory. However, even after they were brought to Tadipatri, it is stated that there is no change in the attitude of the accused and he continued to harass the deceased physically and mentally.
4. While so, on 14.10.2013, at about 02.00 p.m. in the afternoon, the accused demanded money from the deceased for the purpose of consuming alcohol. There was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased at that time and the deceased stated that if he continues to harass her like that, that she would die. Immediately the accused stating that both of them would together die, has brought kerosene and poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. When she was in flames, he tried to extinguish the same by pouring water and he also sustained burn injuries at that time and thereafter he ran away and went away from the house. The deceased, who was in flames, raised cries and on hearing the same, the neighbors of the house including P.W.3 came to the house of the accused and they have extinguished the flames on her. After knowing about the incident, the parents of the deceased reached the house. They have taken the deceased to the Government Hospital of Tadipatri. The duty Doctor informed the police that the deceased was admitted with burn injuries in the Hospital. P.W.8, who is the Head Constable of Tadipatri Police Station, immediately reached the Hospital and found the deceased with burn injuries. He recorded her statement.
5. The deceased stated before P.W.8 that the accused is addicted to consuming alcohol and used to beat her and harass her physically and on that day i.e., on 14.10.2013 at about 02.00 p.m., the accused as usual demanded money from her for the purpose of consuming alcohol and beat her and when she stated the if he continues to harass her in such a manner that she would die that the accused stating that both of them would together die, brought kerosene and poured on her and set her ablaze with a match-stick and thereafter he trie
State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra
Munnu Raja v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The accused's false explanation and the deceased's dying declaration pointed to his guilt for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
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 meets the criteria of truthfulness, voluntariness, and absence of suspicion, as established by the Indian Evidence Act and relevan....
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....
The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations, the influence of intoxication on criminal actions, and the requirement of evidence for specific charges.
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.
Murder – Factor which distinguishes culpable homicide from murder is presence of special mens rea which consists of mental attitudes indicated in Section 300 IPC and unless one of it is attributable ....
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.