1 The appellants herein, the son and mother, were tried by the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, at Tirupati, in SC No. 97 of 2002, for the offence punishable under S.498A and 302 IPC. Through its judgment dated 18-10-2005, the Trial Court held the appellants not guilty of the offence under S.498A, but convicted them for the offence under S.302 IPC it sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Hence, this appeal.

2 The case presented by the prosecution before the Trial Court was as under :
A1 was married to one Lakshmi Devi, about one and half years, prior to 30-10-2001. Alleging that A1 was harassing and suspecting her fidelity, Lakshmi Devi, went to the house of her parents', one week prior to 30-10-2001. On 29-10-2001, A1 went to the house of his inlaws, convinced Lakshmi Devi and brought her to his native place in Chittoor District, stating that he would look after her, well.

3 At about 5.00 a.m., on 30-10-2001. A1 poured kerosene on Lakshmi Devi and set her on fire. She woke up and removed the burning clothes. When she tried to go out, A2 beat her and prevented her from going out. In the meanwhile, the neighbours gathered and they chided A1. Subsequently, A1 removed Lakshmi Devi to hospital at Tirupati. On receiving the information, about the incident, the Police recorded the statement of Lakshmi Devi and registered a case. Requisition was given to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti, who in turn, recorded a declaration on the same day. While undergoing treatment, in the hospital, Lakshmi Devi died, on 15-11-2001. The provisions of law in the FIR was altered and investigation was undertaken. Inquest on the dead body, as well as postmortem were conducted. The cause of the death was reported to be the burning injuries. Necessary charges were framed, and the accused pleaded not guilty. The Trial Court found them guilty of the offence under S.302 IPC, and imposed sentence of punishment of imprisonment of life.

4 Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that there are three dying declarations, recorded from the deceased, and several inconsistencies exist in them. He submits that the dying declarations, in turn, are at variance with the alleged extra judicial confession, said to have been made by A1 to PW 3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the benefit of doubt, arising out of the serious inconsistencies, deserves to be extended to the accused.

5 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that all dying declarations are uniform and consistent on material aspects. He submits that A1 himself confessed to PW 3, the maternal uncle of the deceased, about the commission of the offence and the judgment of the Trial Court does not warrant interference.

6 The case against the accused rests on circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness account, to the occurrence. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13, and filed Exs. P1 to P16. PW 1 is the neighbour of the house of A1 and A2, and she was declared hostile. So is the case with PW 2. The maternal uncle of the deceased, PW 3 spoke about the extra judicial confession, said to have been made to him, by A1. His evidence is mostly about the involvement of A1, that too, on the basis of the information received by him. PW 4 is the brother of the deceased. He has stated about the alleged harassment caused to the deceased, and he did not speak of any direct knowledge about the incident. PW 5 is a witness to the Mahazarnama, prepared by the S. I. of Police, and PW 6 is a witness to the inquest. PW 7 is the witness for the arrest, and alleged confession of the accused. PW 8 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem. PW 9 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted the inquest. The autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW 10. PW 11 is the S.I. of Police, who recorded the statement of the dec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document