IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.SURESH REDDY, K.SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ.
Ranganath, Anantapur Dt & 3 Otrs., and Others – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Ap Rep Pp - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1056 of 2016
Decided on : 24-07-2024
Criminal Law - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 34 - The court analyzed the evidence and found inconsistencies in witness testimonies and dying declarations, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
Four accused were convicted for the murder of a neighbor after a quarrel over drainage issues, where one accused allegedly set the victim on fire. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies and dying declarations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimonies of key witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding the circumstances of the death and the alleged actions of the accused, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, considering the inconsistencies in witness statements and dying declarations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in evidence undermine the reliability of the case against the accused.
Result: The Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence are set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
All the four appellants/Accused in Sessions Case No.306 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Ananthapur District, have filed the present Criminal Appeal. They were tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and they were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for “LIFE” each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (06) months. The total fine amount of Rs.4,000/- was directed to be paid to Pw-1 after the Appeal time is over.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 04.02.2024 at about 12.00 Noon, Accused Nos.1 to 4 with a common intention picked up a quarrel with one Smt. Harijana Lakshmakka (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) caught hold of her tuft, dragged her and beat her with hands and legs and in the same process Accused No.2 poured kerosene on her and Accused No.1 set her to fire with a match stick causing her death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses is as follows:-
All the four accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of SC colony, Kallumarri Village, Madakasira Mandal, Ananthapur District. The deceased was also resident of same Village and she is a neighbour to the accused. The marriage of the deceased was performed with one Nagaraju of Muddireddipalli Village of Parigi Mandal about ten (10) years prior to the incident. Due to some disputes, the husband of the deceased discarded her about two (02) years prior to the incident. Since then, she has been residing in the house of her elder sister-Pw-1. There is a public drain infront of the house of Pw-1 and the accused. As the dirty water was coming infront of her house, the deceased used to lay soil across the drain to prevent free flow of drainage water infront of her house. In that connection, Accused Nos.1 to 4 indulged in quarrelling with the deceased for obstructing the drainage water. On 03.02.2014 at about 7.00 A.M, when the deceased laid soil across the drain, Accused Nos.1 to 4 picked up a quarrel with her, abused her and beat her with hands and legs. On the next day i.e., 04.02.2014 at about 12.00 Noon also, the deceased laid soil across the drain. Then, Accused Nos.1 to 4 came there and picked up quarrel with her and caught hold of her tuft, dragged her and beat her with hands and legs. Accused Nos.2 and 4 raised cries stating “Kill the deceased”. Then, Accused No.2 picked up kerosene can and poured kerosene on the deceased and Accused No.1 set fire to her with a match stick. The deceased raised hue and cries. Then Pws-1 to 3 came to the scene of offence and put off the flames. Thereafter, Pw-1 telephoned to 108 Ambulance, in which the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Hindupur where she was admitted. On the same day, at about 1.00 P.M, Pw-13- Head Constable, I Town Police Station, Hindupur received intimation Ex.P-14 from the hospital. Immediately, he went to the hospital and recorded statement from injured under Ex.P-15. He sent both Exs.P-14 and 15 to Madakasira Police Station on the point of jurisdiction.
4. Pw-14-Sub-Inspector of Police, Madakasira Police Station received Exs.P-14 and 15 at about 9.00 P.M and registered a case in Cr.No.18 of 2014 under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Copy of FIR was marked as Ex.P-18. Having received intimation from the Government Hospital, Pw-6-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur went to the hospital and recorded statement from the injured, which was marked as Ex.P-4. At about 10.00 P.M, Pw-14 visited the Government Hospital and recorded statement from the injured and also recorded statements of Pws-1 to 3. On 05.02.2014, he went to the scene of offence and recorded statement of Pw-4. He also prepared observation report- Ex.P-
The court established that inconsistencies in witness testimonies and dying declarations can lead to reasonable doubt, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
Point of law: Statement given by the deceased in her dying declaration reveals that the appellant was in a fully drunken stage on the night when the incident took place.
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.
Reliability of dying declarations is crucial for conviction under IPC Section 304(ii); conviction upheld as statements were consistent and trustworthy.
Dying declarations, if consistent and credible, can support a conviction without corroboration, as established by the court.
Inconsistent dying declarations cannot support a conviction for murder under IPC Section 302.
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 prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in dying declarations led to acquittal for murder while confirming conviction for cruelty.
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.
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.