2025:APHC:16184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K Suresh Reddy, V.Sujatha, JJ.
Banjaru Vamshi Krishna @ Mangali Vamsi, Kurool Dt. - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep Pp - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1345/2017
Decided On : 24-04-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : SODUM ANVESHA
For the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 323 - Murder and causing hurt - Accused convicted for murder after pouring diesel and setting fire to the deceased, resulting in death - Acquittal of co-accused for causing hurt - Dying declarations recorded by police and magistrate were pivotal in conviction. (Paras 2, 5, 19)
(B) Dying declarations - Reliability - Court emphasized that inconsistencies in dying declarations must be assessed for materiality; minor discrepancies do not undermine overall reliability. (Paras 11, 14, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering the deceased by pouring diesel and igniting him after a quarrel. The incident occurred on 16.01.2014, leading to severe burn injuries and subsequent death. The prosecution relied on dying declarations and witness testimonies. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found the dying declarations credible and consistent regarding the act of pouring diesel and setting fire, despite minor inconsistencies about the quarrel's context. The conviction was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 19)
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of the dying declarations and the implications of inconsistencies in witness testimonies. (Paras 11, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that both dying declarations were credible and consistent in identifying the appellant as the perpetrator, affirming that minor discrepancies do not negate the reliability of such statements. (Paras 14, 19)
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed, confirming conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
V. Sujatha, J.
Accused No.1 in S.C.No.151 of 2015 on the file of Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is the appellant. He along with A2 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges.
The first charge was under Section 302 IPC against A1.
The second charge was under Section 323 IPC against A2 for causing injuries to P.W.2.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 16.01.2014 at about 09.30 p.m., the appellant poured diesel on Mangali Nallagatla Ram Pullaiah (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and set fire to him causing his death and in the same process, A2 beat P.W.2 with hands and legs, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 IPC .
(a) After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A2 under Section 323 IPC .
3. Case of the prosecution, briefly is as follows:
(i) Both the accused are residents of Bethamcherla town. The material prosecution witnesses also are the residents of Bethamcherla town. The deceased was also resident of the same town. A1 and the deceased used to reside in the same lane. There were ill-feelings in between the families of accused and the deceased and they are not in talking terms. P.W.1 is mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1. The accused and the deceased used to eke out their livelihood by doing coolie work. On 16.01.2014 at about 08.15 p.m., A1 went to the medical shop of P.W.5 to purchase tablets, there A1 and deceased quarreled with each other and were intervened by P.W.5 who separated and pacified them. On the same day night at about 09.30 p.m., the deceased went to the house of A1, questioned him for taking up quarrel with him at the medical shop and then A2, who is the mother of A1, along with the Juvenile in-conflict-with-law, beat the deceased with hands and legs. A1, with an intention to get rid of the deceased, went inside his house, brought diesel in a bottle, poured on the body of the deceased and lit fire; due to which the deceased received severe burn injuries over his body and raised hue and cries. On hearing the same, P.Ws. 3 and 4, whose houses are located near by the scene of offence rushed to the spot and extinguished the flames with the help of blankets. P.W. 1- mother of the deceased, upon hearing the cries of the deceased rushed to the scene, enquired the deceased about the incident and was informed about the incident. Immediately the injured was shifted to Government hospital, Kurnool for treatment. On 16.01.2014, in the mid-night P.W.12 - S.I. of Police, Bethamcherla Police Station has received an intimation from GGH, Kurnool. Ex.P.7 is the said medical intimation. On the morning of 17.01.2014, at about 09.30 a.m., P.W.12- S.I. of Police went to GGH, Kurnool, and recorded statement of the deceased which is marked as Ex.P.8 which was endorsed by the duty doctor vide Ex.P.9. On the same day, at about 12.20 a.m., P.W.15 –Special JMFC, Kurnool, having received intimation (Ex.P.8) from the hospital went and recorded the statement from the injured which is marked as Ex.P.19. Later, P.W.12 went back to Bethamcherla Police Station and basing on Ex.P.8, he registered a case in Cr.No.12 of 2014 under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC and submitted copy of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P.10 is the original FIR. On the same day, he went to the scene of offence, which is a small street running in front of the houses of the accused, seized green colour plastic bottle (M.O.1) and half burnt black shirt with white stripes (M.O.2) in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8 – Mediators under the cover of panchanama vide Ex.P.11. Ex.P.12 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 19.01.2014, P.W.12- S.I. of Police received death intimation of the deceased from the ho
Amol Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh
State of Punjab V. Parveen Kumar
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on credible dying declarations, emphasizing that minor inconsistencies do not undermine their reliability.
A conviction based on inconsistent dying declarations is unsafe without corroborative evidence; discrepancies create reasonable doubt undermining the prosecution's case.
Dying declaration – In cases where Court finds that there exist more than one dying declarations, each one of them must be examined with care and caution and only after satisfying itself as to which ....
In cases of multiple dying declarations, inconsistencies necessitate corroboration for conviction; the earliest declaration indicating self-immolation was preferred, creating reasonable doubt about t....
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....
Dying declarations must be coherent and trustworthy, free from influence to be valid for conviction; inconsistencies lead to benefit of doubt.
(1) Merely because there are two/multiple dying declarations, all dying declarations are not to be rejected.(2) There is neither a rule of law nor of prudence to the effect that a dying declaration c....
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.