The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, recognizing the act was committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel.

JUDGMENT :

K.SUJANA, J.

This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.04.2015 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, in S.C.No.702 of 2006 wherein, the appellant/accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Safia Begum was the wife of accused and their marriage took place about 18 years prior to April, 2006. Out of their wedlock, the deceased gave birth to three daughters and a son. PW.3 – Salma, is the elder daughter. After about ten years of marriage, the accused got addicted to alcohol and used to threaten the deceased for money and also used to beat her frequently. Several times PWs.1 and 2 who are brothers of the deceased made efforts to convince the accused to mend his ways but their efforts failed. On 01.04.2006 the accused demanded money from his wife to purchase liquor and when she denied to give money and warned the accused to leave his company, he became wild and in rage, doused kerosene on the body of deceased and set her ablaze. Seeing the incident, PW.3 raised hues and cries. On hearing the same, the father of accused and neighbours rushed to the house and shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Kollapur. Later, she was shifted to the District Head Quarters’ Hospital, Mahabubnagar, for treatment, where the dying declaration of deceased was recorded.

3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and got marked M.Os.1 and 2. On behalf of accused, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. Basing on the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused, as stated supra.

4. Heard Smt Pendyala Suhasini Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/accused, and Sri T.V.Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State.

5. Learned counsel for appellant/accused would submit that though there were number of loopholes in the case of prosecution, the trial Court convicted the accused and that the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. The trial Court erred in convicting the accused as per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who are interested witnesses and that the accused has no motive, intention, premediated plan and mens rea to kill the deceased and he was not in a position to anticipate the result of his action as he was in drunken condition and he had no knowledge that his action would lead to the death of deceased instantly. Therefore, she prayed the Court to set aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court by acquitting the appellant.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 corroborates with each other. Further, the dying declaration of victim itself is sufficient to convict the accused. As such, there are no merits in the appeal and the judgment of the trial Court is well founded, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and the evidence on record, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?

2. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs interference?

POINT Nos.1 & 2:

8. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14.

PW.1 is the complainant and the brother of deceased. His evidence is that the marriage of his sister was performed with the accused and both lived happily and were blessed with four children. After ten years of their marriage, the accused got addicted to liquor and began harassing the deceased demanding to get more money. PW.1 deposed that several times, he has tried to convince the accused to live amicably but the accused has not changed his att