Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Mohammed Irfan A1, Kurnool Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 20 June, 2024
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
1
APHC010893852016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3474]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1024/2016
Between:
Shaik Mohammed Irfan (A1
A1), Kurnool Dt., ...APELLANT
AND
The State of A.P. Rep.. by its Public Prosecutor ...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Apellant:
1. G VIJAYA SARADHI
Counsel for the Respodent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(Per
Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
A1 in S.C.No.187/2015 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial
of cases under SCs & ST
STs (POA) Act-cum-VI
VI Additional Sessions Judge,
Kurnool, is the appellant in the present criminal appeal. He along with A2 was
tried by the learned Special Judge under two charges. The first charge was
against A1 & A2 under Section 302 IPC and second charge was against A1
under Section 304-B IPC.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 20.06.2013 at about 8.30 A.M., A1 &
A2 caused the death of one Shaik Shabana (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased') by pouring kerosene and set fire to her, thereby committed offence
punishable under Sections 302 & 304-B IPC. After completion of trial, the
learned Special Judge convicted A1 u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer
imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The learned Special Judge
acquitted A2 for the charges framed against him. Aggrieved by the said
conviction and sentence, A1 preferred the present appeal.
3. Facts in nut shell are as follows:
(a) A1 is a resident of Upperipeta, Nandyal town and A2 is a resident of
Hazi Nagar, Nandikotkur town. A2 is none other than the uncle of A1. The
deceased is the wife of A1. PWs 1 & 2 are parents of the deceased. The
marriage between A1 and deceased took place about six years prior to the
date of incident. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.20,000/- cash and
one Tula of gold was presented to A1. For some time the coupled lead happy
marital life at Nandyal and the couple blessed with a daughter. Thereafter, A1
started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally demanding her
to bring additional dowry from her parents. A1 also used to suspect the fidelity
of the deceased. Having come to know about the harassment, PWs 1 & 2
brought the deceased to their house. A1 also joined the deceased at the
house of PWs 1 & 2. For few days, the couple lived happily and again A1
started harassing the deceased. Thereafter PW.1 informed A1 to bring his
elders to settle the disputes. Thereafter A1 went to Hyderabad and returned
one month prior to the date of incident. A1 promised PW.1 that he will look
after the deceased properly. While so, on 20.06.2013, A1 along with A2 came
to the house of PW.1. A2 stayed outside the house and A1 went to the house
and informed PW.1 that he will talk to the deceased. As such PWs 1 & 2
allowed him to go inside the house. After some time, PWs 1 & 2 having heard
cries of the deceased went inside the house and found the deceased in
flames. Immediately A1 ran away from the house and he went away along
with A2 in a motor bike. PW.1 poured water and enquired with the deceased,
who informed him that A1 poured kerosene on her and set fire to her while
she was preparing coffee on kerosene stove. Hearing the cries, the neighbors
PW4 and others also gathered there. Immediately the injured was shifted to
Government General Hospital, Kurnool.
(b) On the same day, at about 10.55 A.M., PW9 - Special Judicial
Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool has received
intimation Ex.P7 from the Hospital. Having received Ex.P7, immediately he
rushed to the hospital and reached there by 11.15 A.M. and identified the
injured with the help of C.M.O. He found the patient was conscious, coherent
and in a fit state of mind to make the statement. He put some preliminary
questions and after satisfying he recorded statement from the injured. In her
statement, the injured has stated that A1 and his uncles Khasim and Ishaq
poured kerosene on her and set fire. Ex.P8 statement was recorded by PW.9.
On the same day at about 4.00 P.M., PW.11 Sub-Inspector of Police,
Nandikotkur received intimation Ex.P11 from the hospital. Immediately he
along with Head Constable went to the hospital at about 5.00 P.M. and
recorded statement Ex.P10 from the injured. On the basis of Ex.P10, he
registered a case in Cr.No.101/2013 under Sections 498-A & 307 IPC and
Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued copies of FIR to all the
concerned. Ex.P12 is the FIR. In her statement Ex.P10, the injured has
stated that A1 alone poured kerosene and set fire to her.
(c) On the next day, PW.11 went to the scene of offence and recorded
the statements of PWs 3 & 4. He prepared an observation report Ex.P13 in
the presence of PWs 5 & 8. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P14. On
25.06.2013, he received death intimation Ex.P15 from the hospital. Thereafter
he altered the FIR from 307 IPC to 302 & 304-B IPC. Ex.P.16 is the altered
FIR. On 26.06.2013, he held inquest over the dead body in the presence of
PW.7 and another. Ex.P4 is the Inquest report. Thereafter, he sent the dead
body for Post-Mortem examination. PW.10 Assistant Professor, Government
Medical College, Kurnool, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined
the cause of death was due to burns and its complications - septicemic shock.
He issued Post-Mortem certificate Ex.P.9.
(d) PW12 S.D.P.O, Atmakur took up further investigation on
28.06.2013. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence and recorded
statements of PWs 1 & 2 and others. He found the investigation conducted by
PW.11 in correct lines. On 11.09.2013, he arrested A1 & A2 in his office as
they were produced by PW.11. After receiving the Post Mortem report Ex.P9,
he filed charge sheet.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and
marked Exs.P1 to P17 and exhibited MOs.1 to 3.
5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied
the incriminating material.
6. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for appellant, and Sri
Anand Kumar Kochiri, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the
respondent State.
7. We have gone through the entire material on record.
8. PW.1 is the mother and PW.2 is the father of deceased respectively.
PWs 3 to 5 did not support the prosecution. Except the oral evidence of PWs
1 & 2, there is no other evidence in favour of the prosecution. The other
evidence available on record is two dying declarations exhibits P8 & P10.
Ex.P8 dying declaration was recorded by PW.9, whereas Ex.P10 was
recorded by PW.11. The oral evidence of PWs 1 & 2 indicates that the
marriage between A1 and deceased took place about six years prior to the
date of incident. Their evidence further show that A1 used to harass the
deceased both physically and mentally demanding her to bring additional
dowry. It is also the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 that on the fateful day A1 came to
their house informing them he wanted to talk with the deceased. It is also in
their oral evidence that after A1 entering into the house, they heard the cries
of deceased and immediately they went into the house and found the
deceased in flames and A1 running away from the scene. But curiously the
deceased in her dying declaration Ex.P8 has specifically stated before the
Magistrate PW.9 that A1 and his two uncles by name Khasim and Ishaq
poured kerosene and set fire to her. The earliest version of the prosecution
was spoken to by the deceased in Ex.P8 dying declaration. Ex.P8 was
recorded at about 11.15 A.M. on 20.06.2013. But, the second dying
declaration Ex.P10 was recorded by PW.11 at about 5.30 P.M. In the second
dying declaration Ex.P10, the deceased has stated that A1 alone poured
kerosene and set fire to her. Curiously the FIR was registered on the basis of
second dying declaration Ex.P10. Of course, the learned trial Judge
disbelieved Ex.P10. Coming to Ex.P8, the deceased has specifically stated
that A1, Khasim and Ishaq poured kerosene and set fire to her. Curiously the
said Khasim and Ishaq were not shown as accused. Some third person by
name Shaik Hasham is shown as A2 alleging that he was standing outside the
house. For the best reasons known to the prosecution, the said Khasim and
Ishaq were not shown as accused either in the FIR or in the charge sheet. As
seen from exhibits P8 and P10 dying declarations, they are inconsistent to
each other. In Ex.P10, the deceased has stated that A1 alone poured
kerosene and set fire to her. But in Ex.P8, which is the earliest version, the
deceased has stated that A1, Khasim and Ishaq poured kerosene and set fire
to her. Ex.P8 dying declaration also does not corroborate with ocular version
of PWs 1 & 2. As both the dying declarations are inconsistent to each other
and inconsistent to the version of PWs 1 & 2, we are not inclined to place any
reliance on the case of prosecution. So far as the offence under section 498-
A IPC is concerned, there is no charge framed by the learned trial judge.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution is not
able to prove the guilt of A1 beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he is
entitled for acquittal.
10. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed by setting aside the
conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge for trial of
cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge,
Kurnool in S.C.No.187/2015 on 16.05.2016. The fine amount, if any, paid by
the appellant shall be refunded.
As the appellant / A1 was already enlarged on bail by order of this Court
dt. 17.12.2021 in terms of the order of a Division Bench of the combined High
Court in Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P.1, he is directed to surrender
before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, for completing necessary
formalities for his release. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if
any, shall also stand closed.
__________________
K.SURESH REDDY, J
________________________
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J
MVA
[2016(3)ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)]
