The court upheld the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, emphasizing the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal based on insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(P. Sree Sudha, J.)

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 20.05.2011, in S.C. No. 56 of 2010 passed by the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Warangal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.08.2009, the father of the deceased gave complaint stating that he performed the marriage of his elder daughter Gundekari Rajitha, aged about 28 years as on the date of incident with one Gundekari Yadagiri/accused about 12 years back and they blessed with one son and daughter. His son-in-law was doing Cooli work. About 2 years back, his son-in-law used to pick up quarrel with his daughter and beat her without any valid reason, as such mediation was conducted and elders also advised him not to repeat the same and later about 5 or 6 months back, he kept his daughter and son-in-law in a rented house, even then there is no change in the attitude of the accused. On 13.08.2009, at about 6:30 AM, his grandson namely Raju, aged about 12 years came on to the road and stated that his father poured Kerosene on his mother and set her ablaze. Immediately, he along with some others went there and found his daughter with burn injuries and immediately shifted her to MGM hospital in 108 ambulance. His Son-in-law with an intention to kill his daughter, poured Kerosene and set her to fire. Therefore, requested the Police authorities to initiate action against him. It was received on 13.08.2009 at about 9:00 AM and registered a case in Cr. No. 147/2009 under Section 307 of IPC and later when she succumbed to injuries, the Section of law was altered to 302 of IPC. Dying Declaration was recorded by the Magistrate on 13.08.2009, from 9:55 AM to 10:10 AM.

3. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and marked Exs.P1 to P10 and also marked Ex.D1, Exs.C1 to C7 and M.Os.1 to 3. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C under Section 302 of IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, State preferred the present appeal.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that in spite of the Dying Declaration deposed by the deceased in clear terms against the accused, the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence properly and acquitted him. He also contended that the evidence of P.Ws.3, 9 and 13 proves the case of prosecution, but the trial Court disbelieved their version and the Dying Declaration recorded by P.W.13 was also not considered. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court.

5. Complainant is the father of the deceased. In his evidence, he reiterated the contents of Ex.P1-complaint and stated that accused was harassing his daughter and also suspecting her character, as such the matter was placed before the elders i.e., More Prabhakar and Atika Meeranna. On their advise, they were kept in a separate residence, even then there is no change in his attitude. In his Cross-examination he stated that he can affix his signature, but he could not write. Ex.P1 was scribed by someone else and he could not say the name of the scribe. It was suggested to him that he has not stated before the police that he extinguished the fire on his daughter, but he denied it. It was further suggested to him that he did not state before police that he raised the dispute about harassment made by the accused, but he denied it. He further stated that initially he along with his wife, accused and his wife and their children lived jointly in his house till accused shifted his residence to a rented house. When accused stayed in his house, he treated his wife properly. He also stated that children of the accused were residing with him. It was suggested that when accused did not accept their proposal to keep his son with them, he falsely implicated him, but he denied it. He did not know whether accused had given any complaint against him on 13.08.2009 or not.

6. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. She also stated regarding th