IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. SURESH REDDY, T.C.D. SEKHAR, JJ.
Duvvati Babu Rao, S/o. Ramulu - Apellant
Versus
The State Of AP rep PP, through the Inspector of Police, Korukonda Circle, East Godavari District, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 880 Of 2017
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 Part-II - Accused convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, later appealed and convicted under Section 304 Part-II instead - The court found that the deceased's death was due to septicemia from burns, not directly from the accused's actions - The dying declarations were consistent and credible, but the nature of the injuries did not support a murder conviction. (Paras 4, 14, 15)
(B) Dying Declarations - The court emphasized the importance of the dying declarations as the primary evidence, noting their consistency and reliability in establishing the sequence of events leading to the deceased's injuries. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with subjecting his wife to cruelty and later setting her on fire, leading to her death. The trial court acquitted him of cruelty but convicted him of murder. The appeal focused on the nature of the injuries and the intent behind the act.
Findings of Court:
The court found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC, considering the circumstances of the case and the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased.
Issues: The main issues included whether the accused's actions constituted murder or culpable homicide and the interpretation of the dying declarations as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence did not support a murder conviction due to the nature of the injuries and the circumstances surrounding the incident, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC instead.
Result: The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part, setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and convicting under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
JUDGMENT :
(K. Suresh Reddy, J.)
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.16 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge under two charges.
2. The 1st charge is under Section 498-A IPC and the 2nd charge is under Section 302 IPC.
3. Substance of the charge is that prior to 27.06.2014 the accused used to harass his wife by name Duvvati Venkata Lakshmi @ Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') subjecting her to cruelty and used to beat her suspecting her fidelity and on 27.06.2014 at about 2.00 P.M. the accused having quarreled with the deceased, poured kerosene on her and set her to fire and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to injuries on 02.07.2014, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections. 498-A and 302 IPC.
4. After completion of trial, learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the appellant under Section 498-A IPC, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 'LIFE' and also to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. Aggrieved by the same, the accused/appellant filed the present appeal.
5. Case of prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:-
The accused is none other than the husband of the deceased and they are residents of Undeswarapuram village, Korukonda Mandal. The marriage of the deceased was performed with one Krishna about 25 years prior to the incident. The deceased blessed with a son-P.W.1 and a daughter-P.W.8 through the said Krishna. Due to the disputes, both of them got separated about 15 years back. About two years prior to the date of incident, the deceased got married to the accused. Both the accused and deceased used to eke out their livelihood by attending agricultural coolie works. The accused used to harass and ill-treat the deceased suspecting her fidelity. The deceased is living with accused and P.W.1. The daughter of the deceased got married about two years prior to the date of incident and she was residing with her husband at Korukonda village. While so, on 27.06.2024 at about 2.00 P.M., when P.W.1 was taking lunch, the accused came and abused the deceased in a filthy language. Immediately, P.W.1 left the house without taking lunch. Thereafter, the deceased informed the accused that she will go to her parents‟ house at Undeswarapuram village as the accused was harassing her. When she was getting ready to go to her parents‟ house, the accused took a kerosene bottle lying there, poured on the deceased and set fire to her. Thereafter, the accused put off the flames by pouring water on the deceased and shifted her to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry in an ambulance.
P.W.16-A.S.I. Out-post Government Hospital received hospital intimation-Ex.P18 about the admission of the injured at about 9.30 P.M. on the same day. Immediately, he visited the hospital and recorded the statement-Ex.P19 from the injured and forwarded the same to Korukonda Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. P.W.14-S.I. of police, Korukonda Police Station having received Exs.P18 and P19, registered a case in Crime No.191 of 2014 under Section 498-A and 307 IPC and issued copies of the FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P.20 is the FIR. Thereafter, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured. He also recorded the statement of P.W.1. Thereafter, he went to the scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators and prepared an observation report-Ex.P11 in the presence of P.W.9 and another. He also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P22 at the scene of offence. He seized M.Os.1 to 4 at the scene of offence under Ex.P11. He also photographed the scene and photographs were marked as Ex.P21. He also recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 to 5. On the same day at about 8.50 P.M., P.W.12-VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram received
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 prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in dying declarations led to acquittal for murder while confirming conviction for cruelty.
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 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.
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....
Inconsistent dying declarations cannot support a conviction for murder under IPC Section 302.
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.
The court reinforced the principle that when a death occurs in a domestic setting, the burden of explanation lies on the accused, particularly under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
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.