IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention, with impulsive actions in a heated moment potentially qualifying for a lesser charge under Section 304-I IPC.

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.12.2014 in S.C.No.190 of 2014 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three (3) years. Further, the appellant is also convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo fifteen (15) days Simple Imprisonment, under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri N.Parameswara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW1 is the mother of deceased and the deceased/daughter was married to appellant, about 15 years prior to her death. At the time of marriage, PW1 gave Rs.10,000/- in cash, one tula gold, 15 tuals of silver and other household articles. The appellant was a Drummer in Brand Troupe and his income was seasonal. Initially, after marriage, the appellant and deceased lived happily and thereafter, the appellant started harassing her mentally and physically and was addicted to alcohol. Panchayats were held regarding the differences between the appellant and deceased.

4. On 31.10.2013, at around 9:00 p.m., the appellant forced the deceased to give Rs.15,000/- which she brought by taking loan from a Women’s Group. However, the deceased refused to part with it. For the said reason, the appellant beat her indiscriminately. On 01.11.2013, in the morning, the appellant again started beating her. In order to threaten the appellant and bring about a change in him, the deceased poured kerosene on to herself and threatened to commit suicide. At that juncture, it is alleged that the appellant taking advantage of the situation has lit matchstick and threw it on the deceased and she was engulfed in fire. She ran out of the house shouting unable to bear the pain. After putting off flames, she was shifted to hospital by PW8 and PW4 and immediately, a requisition was given to the Magistrate-PW15 for recording Dying Declaration. On 01.11.2013, learned Magistrate went to the hospital and recorded Dying Declaration. Learned Magistrate introduced herself to the deceased. The deceased stated that the appellant was ill-treating her every day on the ground that she was not having children and he used to beat and abuse her in drunken condition. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate questioned as what happened to her, then the deceased stated that she poured kerosene on to herself and the appellant lit fire to her and stated that his intention was to cause her death. To the next question as who was responsible for the situation, the deceased replied it was the appellant. While undergoing treatment, on 02.11.2013, she died at around 3:00 a.m. The Police concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of evidence of PW1 to PW18 and Exs.P1 to P9 found favour with the version of the prosecution that the accused had intentionally caused the death of the deceased by litting a matchstick and setting her on fire. The trial Judge mainly placed reliance on the Dying Declaration Ex.p3 and corroborating evidence of Pws.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 regarding harassment.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and it is clear case of suicide. However, the accused is projected as murderer by the close relatives of deceased, who are PW1 and others. Even assuming that the accused lit fire on deceased, he has not poured kerosene on her nor can his intention be inferred to cause the death. The appellant has undergone nearly 10 years of Imprisonment and the offence would fall under Section 304-I of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.

7. On th