HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD *****

Criminal Appeal No.1224 OF 2017 Between:

Kanthala Hanmanthu and another … Appellants And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor … Respondent DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 30.01.2025 Submitted for approval.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No the Judgments?

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Yes/No Reporters/Journals

3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No Judgment?

__________________

K.SURENDER, J

__________________________________

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J

* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI + Crl.A. No.1224 OF 2017 % Dated 30.01.2025 # Kanthala Hanmanthu and another … Appellants And $ The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor … Respondent ! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel ^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor >HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1224 OF 2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. The appellants are questioning their conviction for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.194 of 2013 dated 31.08.2017 passed by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. His deceased daughter was married to one Narsimlu (L.W.5) six years prior to the incident. They were living happily. Bheemaiah, who is the father of Narsimlu took loan of Rs.12,000/- from the Bank and without repaying the said loan, said Bheemaiah died. Since then, Narsimlu and the deceased daughter-in-law of said Bheemaiah were not in a position to clear the loan. Vexed with her life, she burnt herself on 24.06.2012 at 9.30 p.m in the absence of Narsimlu. Hearing her shout for help, neighbors rushed there, extinguished fire and took her to Vikarabad Hospital for treatment. From Vikarabad Hospital, she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and while undergoing treatment, she died on 29.06.2012.

3. On the basis of the said complaint on 30.06.2012 by P.W.1, crime was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C for suspicious death.

4. Before the complaint was filed by P.W.1, requisition was given to the Magistrate on 27.06.2012 i.e., three days after the incident, for recording dying declaration. P.W.9 is the Magistrate, who went to the hospital and recorded her dying declaration. According to P.W.9, when questioned as to what happened, deceased answered that four days prior around 7.00 p.m, when she and her agnates fought with each other, they poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire. When P.W.9 specifically questioned as to who were the persons, the deceased informed him that one Hanmanthu and Hanmamma, (appellants herein), poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. P.W.9 further stated that the deceased was in a fit state of mind throughout the recording of dying declaration.

5. The statement made by the deceased formed basis to file charge sheet under Section 302 of IPC. The Section of law was altered from Section 174 Cr.P.C to Section 302 of IPC on 29.08.2012. The appellants were arrested on 29.10.2012, i.e., nearly four months after the death of deceased.

6. After the death of the deceased on 29.06.2012 and complaint being filed, inquest proceedings were conducted by P.W.8, Tahsildar of Dharur. Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem examination and the postmortem Doctor/P.W.10 opined that the death was on account of burns.

7. P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, in his statement before the Court stated that the deceased used to suffer from schizophrenia. Since there were dues, and notices were received from the Bank, she committed suicid