HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. SURESH REDDY, T.C.D. SEKHAR, JJ.
Alladi Ramesh, S/o. Ankamma Prabhudas – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of AP., Rep PP., through the Inspector of Police, Addanki Circle – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 419 Of 2017
Decided On : 29-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 498-A - Charges of cruelty and murder - Accused convicted under Section 498-A IPC for one year and under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment - Evidence of harassment consistent but inconsistencies in dying declarations led to acquittal under Section 302 IPC - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder charge. (Paras 2, 3, 15, 17)
(B) Dying Declarations - Inconsistencies in statements recorded by magistrate and police - Reliability questioned due to contradictions in accounts of events leading to the incident. (Paras 13, 15)
Facts of the case:
The accused subjected his wife to cruelty and allegedly set her on fire, leading to her death. The trial court convicted him for cruelty and murder based on witness testimonies and dying declarations. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction for cruelty but found the evidence insufficient to sustain a murder conviction due to inconsistencies in dying declarations. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of dying declarations and whether the prosecution proved the murder charge beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 15, 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for consistent and reliable evidence to support a conviction for murder, finding the prosecution's case lacking in this regard. (Paras 15, 17)
Result: The appeal is partly allowed; conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside, while conviction under Section 498-A IPC is confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
(K. Suresh Reddy, J.)
Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole (for short, 'the trial Court'), is the appellant in the present criminal appeal before this Court. He was tried by the trial Court under the following two charges:
I charge was under Section 498-A IPC; and
II charge was under Section 302 IPC
2. Substance of the charges is that prior to 09-10-2015, the accused subjected his wife, namely Alladi Meremma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), to cruelty by harassing her both physically and mentally demanding her to bring money earned by her and on 09-10-2015 at about 1.30 a.m., he poured kerosene over her while she was sleeping and set fire to her who succumbed to injuries on 14-10-2015, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The trial Court also convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus:
P.W.1 is son of the accused and the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3 are neighbours. P.W.4 is sister of the deceased. P.W.5 is younger brother of the deceased. P.W.6 is cousin of the accused. The accused, the deceased and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Mallapalli, Santhamagulur Village. The marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed about 17 years prior to the date of incident as per their caste customs and rites. After marriage, the deceased joined matrimonial home and they were blessed with two sons and one daughter.
The accused, who was working as lorry driver, addicted to drinking and used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally for the sake of money to consume liquor. About five years prior to the date of incident, the accused suffered paralysis stroke and both his right hand and right leg were paralyzed. As the accused was suffering from paralysis, he used to consume liquor regularly.
The deceased used to attend coolie work and maintain the family. The accused used to harass the deceased demanding her to pay money earned by her for consuming liquor and also for preparing meat curry daily. Four days prior to the date of incident, the accused sold away rice bag and spent the amount for consuming liquor. In that regard, an altercation took place between the accused and the deceased. While so, on 09-10-2015 at about 1.30 a.m. while the deceased was sleeping along with his son, the accused came, poured kerosene over the deceased, went to gas stove and lit the same, took out a paper, lit it and threw it on the deceased. The deceased received flames and raised hue and cry. On hearing hue and cry, P.Ws.1 and 2 came out of the house and the deceased also came out of the house being unable to bear the burns. Immediately, P.Ws.3 and 4 and other neighbours came to the scene, put off the flames with the help of bed sheets and shifted the deceased to Government General Hospital, Narasaraopet, in 108 ambulance. From there, the deceased was shifted to Mother Teresa Multispecialty Hospital, Narasaraopet.
Having received medical intimation-Ex.P4, P.W.12-Sub Inspector of Police, Santhamagulur Police Station, went to Mother Teresa Multispecialty Hospital at about 11 a.m. and recorded a statement from the injured which was marked as Ex.P22. P.W.12 went to police station and registered a case in crime No. 82 of 2015 under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P23 is FIR.
Having received a requisit
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 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 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 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 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.
The court established that inconsistencies in witness testimonies and dying declarations can lead to reasonable doubt, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
Inconsistent dying declarations cannot support a conviction for murder under IPC Section 302.
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.