Telangana High Court
Shaik Ayub, R.R. Dt. vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 18 June, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.85 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Sambasivarao Naidu) The sole accused in a sessions case vide S.C.No.729 of 2013 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeks to assail the Judgment and conviction directed by the trial Court vide Judgment dated 19.11.2014 by way of this present criminal appeal which was filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.
2. The appellant herein was found guilty by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to pay the find he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) months.
3. The appellant has claimed that trial Court committed an error by convicting him without proper appreciation of evidence. There is no incriminating evidence to show that he has committed the alleged 2 PSK,J & SSRN, J Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015 offence. There are no eye witnesses to the offence. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is highly unbelievable. The trial Court ignoring the evidence wherein it is clearly stated that the deceased used to come to the house late nights and whenever the appellant questioned her, she used to give evasive replies, thereby the appellant gave a serious warning to mend her way. Thereby, she might have suffered humiliation and might have lit fire to herself only to threaten the appellant herein. But, unfortunately she succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment and also prayed for his acquittal for the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
4. As could be seen from the material averments made in the charge sheet that was filed against the appellant, it is alleged that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased/wife by name Shahnaz Begum was performed about 10 years prior to the date of alleged offence. During the matrimonial life, the couple had two (2) sons and subsequently, the appellant having addicted to alcohol, use to quarrel with his wife very often and 3 PSK,J & SSRN, J Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015 subjected her to harassment and cruelty. It is also alleged by the prosecution that on the intervening night of 08/09- 09-2013 the appellant came to the house in a drunken condition, had a quarrel with his wife and beat her and later when she slept, at about 05:00 A.M., the accused poured petrol on her body and set her ablaze. Thereby, she started screaming due to burn injuries. The appellant ran away from the place of offence. The cries of the deceased attracted the neighbours, who went to her rescue and shifted her to hospital. On receipt of information from the Osmania General Hospital, PW4-Assistant Sub Inspector of Police rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. He sent a requisition to PW8 for recording her dying declaration. Based on the statement recorded by PW4 from the deceased, a case in Crime No.338 of 2013 has been registered by PW10. However, in view of death of the deceased while undergoing treatment, the police have altered the section of law, they have examined the material witness and after completing other formalities, PW11- Inspector of Police, Mailardevpally laid charge sheet against 4 PSK,J & SSRN, J Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015 the appellant with an allegation that he has committed the offences punishable under Section 302 and 498-A IPC.
5. The trial Court having received the case records from the District Court, examined the appellant herein and framed charges under Section 498-A and 302 of IPC. However, the appellant herein denied the accusation and claimed to have been trial. In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. MO1-a bottle was also marked by the prosecution. The trial Court having accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses found the appellant herein guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. The trial Court was of the opinion that the prosecution could not prove the charge under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly acquitted him for the said charge under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The appellant herein was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default in payment of fine, he has to suffer imprisonment for (3) month.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant while attacking the discrepancy in the dying declaration recorded 5 PSK,J & SSRN, J Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015 by PW8 has submitted that according to the statement made by the deceased before the Asst. Sub Inspector it is stated as if the appellant poured petrol on the deceased. Whereas in the statement recorded by PW8 it was stated that the appellant poured kerosene on her body. Therefore, it creates any amount of doubt whether the appellant has committed this offence. The learned counsel has also argued that there is no eye witness to the alleged offense and the offence said to have been committed in the early hours of 09.09.2013 and while the deceased was sleeping. If really the appellant poured petrol/kerosene she could have woke and raise cries, but in this case there is no acceptable evidence to believe that the appellant himself set his wife ablaze. The evidence produced by the prosecution would suggest that the deceased might have committed suicide, may be because of her personal reasons or ill health, but, she gave a false statement against the appellant herein. Thereby, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. But the trial Court on an incorrect appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding as if the appellant 6 PSK,J & SSRN, J Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015 committed an offence under Section 302 IPC, thereby, prayed for setting aside the judgment.
7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who immediately rushed to the scene of offence clearly indicates that having heard the cries of the deceased, they rushed to the house of appellant and found the deceased who was on flames and they have also noticed the appellant running away from the scene of offence. The evidence of these two witnesses is further corroborated by statement made by the deceased before PW8 and in the said statement she categorically informed the learned Magistrate that the appellant herein poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned judgment and the evidence of PWs 1 to 11 categorically shows that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 302 IPC and the trial Court rightly convicted him for the said charge. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. There is no dispute about the relationship between the appellant and the deceased. Similarly there is 7 PSK,J & SSRN, J Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015 no dispute about the admission of the deceased to the Government hospital with burn injuries and her death while undergoing treatment for the said injuries. The record placed before the Court clearly shows that on receipt of intimation from hospital authorities on the admission of deceased with burn injuries, PW4 rushed to the hospital and recorded her statement under Ex.P4. by the time PW4 recorded the statement, none were present with the deceased, thereby there was no question of somebody influencing her to give a false statement against the appellant. According to the statement before the first investigating officer, the deceased categorically stated that her husband who is appellant before this Court having addicted to alcohol used to quarrel with her and used to harass her both physically and mentally. On the previous night, he returned home in inebriated state and had a quarrel with her and beat her and in the early hours of next day while she was sleeping he poured petrol on her and set her ablaze by throwing a burning matchstick. She has also informed PW4 that when she raised hue and cry, 8 PSK,J & SSRN, J Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015 the house owner came to the place of offence and tried to extinguish the fire.
9. It is also on record that PW8 having received requisition from the police concerned, rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P6. The deceased has given the same version before PW8 except discrepancy with regard to the liquid that was used for commission of the offence. It is true in Ex.P4 the deceased has stated as if the appellant poured petrol on her body and in her statement before PW8 she has informed that the appellant poured kerosene on her person. The scene of offence panchanama placed before the Court indicates there was petrol can at the place of offence. By the time PW4 recorded the statement of the deceased she must have been under the pain of the burn injuries. Thereby, the simple discrepancy with regard to petrol or kerosene cannot be taken into consideration for doubting the involvement of the appellant.
10. The two independent witnesses who were examined as PWs 1 and 2 categorically stated before the Court at about 04:30 or 04:45 A.M., they heard cries from 9 PSK,J & SSRN, J Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015 the house of deceased. They rushed to the place of offence. The appellant herein pushed them away and ran away from the place of offence. They found the deceased in flames. For their enquiry she revealed that the accused/appellant poured petrol on her person and lit fire. Apart from these two witnesses, the prosecution has examined two more witnesses as PWs 3 and 4. According to the evidence of PW3 the appellant who was an auto driver, used to spend his entire earning for consuming liquor. He used to suspect his wife and used to quarrel with her frequently. Therefore, he gave a report against the appellant, but on his assurance they had a compromise with the appellant. But, even after the said compromise there was no change in his behavior. Whereas, according to PW4 who is co-brother of the appellant herein on receipt of a phone call that the appellant burnt his wife and she was shifted to Osmania hospital, he rushed to the hospital and when he enquired the deceased, he was told that the appellant herein poured petrol on her body and lit her fire. Though these four witnesses were cross examined by the defense, nothing was elicited to believe that they were 10 PSK,J & SSRN, J Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015 deposing falsehood against the appellant. There was no necessity for the two independent witnesses, namely PWs 1 and 2 to depose falsehood against the appellant. The evidence of these four witnesses coupled with the statements made by the deceased vide Ex.P4 and P6 categorically shows that the appellant herein having quarreled with his wife on the previous night, poured petrol on her body and set her ablaze. Thereby, the trial Court rightly found the appellant herein guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC, as such there are no grounds to set aside the impugned Judgment. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment of the trial Court.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU Date: 18.06.2024 PSSK