Point of Law : Dowry Death - When the deceased poured kerosene on herself, the appellant’s failure to stop her, will not amount to an offence under Section 306 of IPC. reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. Consequently, the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred against judgment dated 23.07.2019 in Sessions Case No.110 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, acquitting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, however, convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/accused is the husband of the deceased and their marriage took place about 13 years prior to the date of incident. They had two children i.e., one son and one daughter. The appellant was addicted to alcohol and frequently beat the deceased. A complaint was also made to Police, Manakondur Police Station and after counseling, though the appellant under took to look after the deceased, there was no change in the attitude of the accused. On 16.03.2018, the accused came home drunk and abused the deceased as she refused to give money. The deceased brought kerosene Can and placed it in front of the appellant. Around 3.00 p.m, when the deceased said that she was ready to die, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. On hearing hue and cry of the deceased, neighbours came to the spot, poured water on her and took her to the Government Hospital, Karimnagar. Initially, crime was registered for the offences under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC. At the hospital, the statement of the deceased was recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police, in which she stated as narrated above. On a requisition made by the police under Ex.P9, P.W.16, Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, recorded Dying Declaration (DD) under Ex.P10, at 7.15 P.M i.e., one hour and forty five minutes prior to the recording of the statement by the Sub Inspector under Ex.P16.

3. Ex.P10, DD was recorded at 7.15 P.M by P.W.16, in which, P.W.16 asked a question i.e., ‘what happened?, to which, the deceased stated as follows;

“Every day, there was fight in between me and the appellant for money. He was listening to his friends and asked me to die, for which reason, I poured kerosene on myself. Even then, he asked me to die and did not stop me. For the past four years, we are fighting and my husband is responsible for this accident.”

(translated by me)

4. As seen from the statement recorded under Ex.P16 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sultanabad, the deceased stated that she was set on fire by the appellant. However in the DD given to the Magistrate (P.W.16) under Ex.P10, the deceased stated that she lit fire to herself. Though the charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 302, and 498-A of IPC, the trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and convicted the accused Under Section 306 and 498-A of IPC.

5. Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Chary and Sri Akula Anil Srinivaass, learned counsel appearing for Sri P.Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sudarshan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellant under Section 306 of IPC on the basis of two contradictory DDs and further there are no allegations of any harassment except making bald allegations of quarrelling regarding money issues frequently. For the said reason, the conviction cannot be sustained.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the judgment of the trial Court is well reasoned and no error is committed by the trial Judge while convicting the appellant under Section 306 of IPC, though no charge was framed. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bandala Saya Goud v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2019(1)ALD (Crl.) 70 (AP), in which this Court, on the facts of the said case, found that the charge under Section 302 of IPC cannot be sustained and convicted the appellant therein under Section 306 of IPC keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’bl