IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ.
Sadu Chinnarao - Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. PP - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2016
Decided On : 26-09-2024
Criminal - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 304 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC regarding culpable homicide and murder, concluding that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, leading to a reduced sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with murdering his wife by setting her on fire after a history of physical and mental abuse. The deceased succumbed to her injuries after several days in the hospital.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including dying declarations, established the accused's guilt in causing the deceased's death, but the nature of the act warranted a conviction under a lesser charge.
Issues: Whether the accused's actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the accused's actions, while resulting in death, did not meet the threshold for murder due to the circumstances surrounding the incident and the deceased's treatment.
Result: The appeal was allowed in part, convicting the accused under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
K. Suresh Reddy, J.
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.315 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (for brevity "learned Additional Sessions Judge"), is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal.
2. Accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two (02) charges. First charge was under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity "IPC") and the second charge was under Section 302 IPC.
3. Substance of the charge is that the accused subjected his wife viz. Savaramma (hereinafter referred to, as "the deceased") to cruelty both physically and mentally by beating her and also by abusing her and on the intervening night of 14/15.02.2012 at about 12.30 a.m., he poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to her in his house situated at Indiranagar, Yemmiganur Town, who died on 24.02.2012 at about 7.40 p.m., while undergoing treatment at the Government Hospital, Yemmiganur, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC.
4. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of five (05) months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows:
The accused and all the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Yemmiganur town. The deceased was also resident of the same town. P.W.1 is the mother, P.W.2 is the son and P.W.3 is the sister, of the deceased, respectively. The marriage of the deceased was performed with one Ganganna about twelve years prior to the date of the incident and the couple blessed with two sons i.e. P.W.2 and another. About nine years prior to the date of the incident, the deceased along with her two sons left the company of Ganganna, due to some differences and she started living with her parents' at Yemmiganur town.
About five years prior to the date of the incident, the deceased developed intimacy with the accused, who is a married person and also resident of Yemmiganur town. The deceased and the accused, without the notice of family members, got married and started living together, along with her two sons in a rented house at Yemmiganur town. Since one year prior to the date of the incident, the accused started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally. The accused used to beat the deceased frequently. In spite of the same, the deceased continued to live conjugal life with the accused.
While so, on 14.02.2012, the sister of the deceased viz. L.W.7/Yerukali Gowri invited the deceased to her house, on the occasion of Puja, as son of L.W.7/Yerukali Gowri was taking “Siva Deeksha”. After taking permission from the accused, the deceased went to the house of her sister (L.W.7/Yerukali Gowri), at about 11.00 a.m., on 14.02.2012. At about 12.00 noon, the accused went to the house of L.W.7 in a drunken state and abused the deceased in filthy language and questioned her as to why she, along with her two sons, went to the house of L.W.7/Yerukali Gowri. Immediately, the deceased along with her two sons and accused returned to their house situated in Indiranagar locality. Even after their return, the accused abused and beat the deceased. The quarrel continued till the evening and the accused went out of the house.
At about 12'O clock, in the night, the accused came to the house in drunken condition and again abused and beat the deceased. Thereafter, the accused took out kerosene can, poured the same on the deceased and set fire to her with a matchstick. Having witnessed the incident, son of the deceased, P.W.2 went to the house of P.W.1 and informed the same. In the meanwhile hearing the cries of the deceased, accused poured water and put off the flames.
The court established that actions leading to death can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the circumstances and intent.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in dying declarations led to acquittal for murder while confirming conviction for cruelty.
The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on the nature of injuries and intent, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-II IP....
The court affirmed that corroborated dying declarations are reliable for establishing guilt in homicide cases, especially when the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation under Section 106 o....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder and destruction of evidence, emphasizing the accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the death of his wife.
Inconsistent dying declarations cannot support a conviction for murder under IPC Section 302.
The court established that a single blow without intent to kill does not meet the threshold for murder under Section 302 IPC, allowing for a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead.
The court established that insufficient evidence of intent to kill led to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part II IPC instead of murder under Section 302 ....
The court established that inconsistencies in witness testimonies and dying declarations can lead to reasonable doubt, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
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.