Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nelli Appalraju, Visakhapatnam., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 21 November, 2024
Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010506202017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
[3486]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 9/2017
Between:
NELLI APPALRAJU, S/O.LATE ARJUNARAO, AGE 33 YEARS,
SC MALA BY CASTE, R/O.D.NO.12-167/2, AGANAMPUDI,
S.C.COLONY, NEAR PINAMADAKA HIGH SCHOOL,
GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...APELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF AP REP PP, Through Inspector of Police,
Gajuwaka Police Station, Duvvada Zone, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by
the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. LEGAL AID
2. S M SUBHAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2
Crl.A.No.9 of 2017
The Court made the following
JUDGMENT :
- (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.83 of 2014 on the file of the
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam is the appellant herein.
The learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned judgment, dated
10.09.2015, in the aforesaid Sessions Case, found the
appellant/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302
and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), and
accordingly convicted him of the said offences and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for 'life' and also to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-, in
default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was further
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (03)
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
2. The substance of the charge as against the accused is that on
19.02.2014 at 5.00 p.m. in the house of accused situated in Door
No.12-167/2, Aganumpudhi S.C.Colony, he caused death of the
deceased namely, Nelli Parvathi (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased'), by pouring kerosene on her and litting fire with a match
stick. Prior to the aforesaid date, the deceased was subjected to
cruelty both physically and mentally by the accused for her earnings,
for his vices.
3. Case of prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, is briefly as follows:-
(i) P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased and the accused.
P.W.3 is related to the accused, whereas P.W.5 is brother of
deceased. P.Ws.1 and 4 are neighbours of the deceased. The family
of the accused consists of the deceased and two children. P.W.2 is the
eldest daughter of accused. According to P.W.1, one and half year
back, i.e., on 19.02.2014 the deceased died due to burn injuries. At
about 5.00 p.m., while P.W.1 was present in his house, he heard
shouts raised by the accused on the deceased. Immediately, he went
out of the house and found the deceased in flames. Thereafter, P.W.1
covered the deceased with a tarpaulin and doused the flames.
According to P.W.2, on the date of incident, she was playing outside of
their house. The accused set fire to the deceased. According to her,
the accused poured kerosene on her and set her to fire with a match
stick. Having heard shouts, she immediately informed the same to
P.W.3.
(ii) On 19.02.2014 at about 5.30 p.m., P.W.11 Inspector of police
received Dial 100 message from Hyderabad stating that the accused
poured kerosene on the deceased and lit fire to her in Aganumpudhi
S.C.Colony. P.W.11 left the police station and reached the scene of
offence and found the deceased. Thereafter the deceased was initially
shifted to Community Health Centre, Aganampudi and later shifted to
King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. At the scene of offence,
P.W.11 received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.11
registered the same as a case in Crime No.96 of 2014 for the offences
under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC. Ex.P10 is the FIR. P.W.11
again proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared scene of
observation report-Ex.P5 in the presence of P.W.8 and others. P.W.11
seized M.Os.1 to 7. P.W.11 prepared Ex.P11-rough sketch of scene of
offence and got photographed the scene of offence through P.W.7 and
he delivered Ex.P4 photographs. During the course of preparing
Ex.P11-rough sketch, he recorded the statements of P.W.s1 to 5. He
got the statement of victim recorded by P.W.9.
(iii) On 24.02.2014 P.W.11 received death intimation of
deceased and also received Ex.P2 complaint of P.W.2 through P.W.5.
Basing on the same, P.W.11 altered the Section of law from 307 IPC to
Section 302 IPC. Ex.P12 is the altered FIR. Thereafter, P.W.11 held
inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of P.W.6 and
others. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. Thereafter, the dead body of
deceased was sent to King George Hospital for conducting post-
mortem examination.
(iv) Though post-mortem examination was conducted by
Dr.Y.Pydi Raju, he was not examined as he is no more. P.W.10 is the
Assistant Professor who worked in Forensic Medicine, AMC,
Visakhapatnam along with Dr.Y.Pydi Raju. The said Dr.Y.Pydi Raju
expired in the month of June, 2015. He identified the signature of
Dr.Y.Pydi Raju on the post-mortem certificate i.e., Ex.P9. He
categorically stated that Ex.P9 is the post-mortem certificate issued
and signed by Dr.Y.Pydi Raju.
(v) On 21.02.2014 at about 8.30 a.m., P.W.11 took up further
investigation. On receiving reliable information regarding the accused,
he proceeded to the house of accused along with his staff and arrested
him at 9.00 A.M. After following all formalities, he sent the accused for
judicial custody. After receiving Ex.P9-post-mortem certificate and
after completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed the charge sheet.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11,
exhibited Exs.P1 to P13 besides marking M.Os.1 to 7.
5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he
denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. On behalf of
defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.D1 was marked.
6. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the entire
evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated
supra. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred.
7. Heard. Perused the record.
8. On perusal of the entire material on record, it would go to show
that except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the other evidence is not of
much relevance to the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 is the neighbor
of the accused and the deceased. According to him, on the date of the
incident i.e., on 19.02.2014 at about 5.00 p.m., while he was present in
the house, he heard the cries of the deceased and the accused. Then,
he immediately went out of the house and found the deceased with
flames and he immediately covered the deceased with a tarpaulin in
order to douse the flames. Nothing has been elicited during the cross-
examination of P.W.1 by the defence, to discredit his testimony.
9. P.W.2 is none other than the daughter of the accused and the
deceased. According to her, as on the date of the incident, while she
was playing outside the house, her mother died due to burn injuries.
She further stated that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased
and lit her with a match stick. P.W.2 is a child witness, studying 4th
class by the date of giving evidence. The learned Sessions Judge put
some preliminary questions to her and after satisfying with the answers
given by her, proceeded to record her evidence. In cross-examination,
nothing has elicited to discredit her testimony.
10. P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased. According to him, P.W.2 is
his niece. He stated that there were disputes between the accused
and the deceased. The accused used to demand the amount for
consuming liquor. Whenever the accused beat the deceased, P.Ws.1
to 5 and others used to bring the deceased to their house. Accused
used to take her back. Fifteen days prior to the death of deceased, the
accused had taken the deceased to his house. Later, P.W.5 received
a phone call between 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m., stating that the deceased
sustained burn injuries. She was shifted to King George Hospital,
Visakhapatnam. He understood that the accused poured kerosene
and set her to fire.
11. P.W.6 is the panch witness to the inquest, P.W.7 is the
photographer. P.W.8 is the mediator for scene of offence observation
report.
12. P.W.9 is the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who received
intimation from King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam to record dying
declaration, at about 8.20 P.M. on 19.02.2014. According to him, he
returned to the hospital by 8.30 P.M. The patient was in Causality
Ward. After putting some preliminary questions to ascertain the mental
health condition of the patient, P.W.9 came to the conclusion that the
patient was in fit state of mind to give her statement and he examined
the patient. Ex.P7 is the dying declaration statement of the deceased.
13. In the Dying Declaration of the deceased, she stated that her
marriage was performed with accused about 8 years back. She got
two girl children. Since the date of marriage, there were disputes
between the accused and the deceased. On the fateful day, in the
evening at about 4.00 p.m., the accused asked money for consuming
liquor. When she refused to give money, the accused quarreled with
her and thereafter poured kerosene on her and lit fire to her. The said
statement has been recorded by the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate and there are absolutely no infirmities in the Dying
Declaration. On a bare perusal of the said statement, it is enough to
come to a conclusion that it is the accused who caused the death of
deceased by pouring kerosene on her and lit her to fire.
14. Apart from the said dying declaration, there is direct evidence of
P.W.2 who is none other than daughter of the accused and the
deceased who deposed to the effect that on the date of the incident,
the accused and the deceased were present in the house and a quarrel
ensued between them. She categorically stated that it is the accused
who poured kerosene on the deceased and lit fire to her. There is
absolutely no cross-examination by the defence in respect of the said
fact, so as to tilt the case of prosecution. Presence of P.W.2 is quite
natural and probable at the scene of offence, which is none other than
their house. P.W.2 has no grouse or enmity to implicate the accused
falsely in a case of this nature. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 is
trustworthy and acceptable.
15. In that view of the matter and on the above analyses, this Court
is of the opinion that the judgment, dated 10.09.2015 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam in S.C.No.83 of
2014 is a well reasoned one and calls for no interference by this Court
as there is material evidence i.e., the dying declaration of the deceased
to prove the guilt of accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.
16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the
judgment, dated 10.09.2015 in Sessions Case No.83 of 2014 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. As the
appellant/accused was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated
20.01.2022, the learned trial Judge is directed to secure the presence
of appellant/accused by issuing N.B.W. to serve the remaining
sentence.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
_____________________________
JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
Dt. 23.10.2024
SAB
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
Date: 23.10.2024
SAB
