A conviction for murder requires clear evidence of intent; without it, a charge may be reduced to culpable homicide.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment, dated 12.03.2020 passed in S.C.No.541 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The appellant herein is arrayed as accused No.1 and he was tried along with accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 of IPC and 304-B of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3, and Section 302 of IPC simplicitor against accused No.1.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent – State. Perused the record.

3. Learned Sessions Judge, after conducting the trial, acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Appellant was acquitted for the offences under Sections 304-B of IPC and 498-A read with 34 of IPC.

4. The deceased, namely Sandhya, is the wife of the appellant. The marriage of the appellant and the deceased was performed on 25.05.2014. At the time of marriage, gold and silver ornaments and cash of Rs.50,000/- were given as dowry. It is alleged that after the marriage, the appellant herein and accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, harassed the deceased.

5. The incident happened on 21.09.2015, when the appellant and the deceased were in the house. According to the prosecution case, the appellant set fire to the deceased, resulting in the deceased receiving severe burn injuries. The deceased was taken to the hospital by the appellant after pouring water on her. On information given by PW1 at about 00:30 hrs on 22.09.2015, which is a telugu written complaint-EXP1, the FIR was registered. The requisition (Ex.P12) was given to the Magistrate-PW16 on 21.09.2015 at about 10:20 PM for recording the dying declaration. The magistrate went to the hospital and recorded the statement/dying declaration of the deceased, which was marked as Ex.P13. The deceased died on 22.09.2015, i.e., the next day of the incident.

6. The Investigating Officer, PW17, went to the scene of offence, which is the house of the appellant and there, Ex.P15/scene of offence panchanama was drafted. M.O.1, which is cigarette lighter, was seized from the bedroom.

7. After the death of the deceased on 22.09.2015, the inquest proceedings were conducted around 2 PM, and thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem doctor opined that the death was on account of “burn injuries” received by the deceased.

8. The appellant was charge sheeted along with accused Nos.2 and 3. However, only the appellant was convicted, as stated above.

9. PWs.1 to 5, who are the relatives of the deceased, have stated about the physical and mental harassment by the appellant for the purpose of additional dowry. However, the trial Court did not find favour with the version of harassment for dowry by either the appellant or anyone else and accordingly acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC.

10. Sri Pratap Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant submitted that the dying declaration is the only evidence that was considered by the trial Court and on the basis of the said dying declaration, the conviction was recorded. In fact