Telangana High Court
Ranga Sreenu Srinivas vs The State Of A.P. on 24 August, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.766 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The sole appellant is convicted for the offence under
Sections 498-A IPC and 304-II IPC and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months and three years
respectively vide judgment in SC No.157 of 2008 dated
18.06.2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-
Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam. Aggrieved by the
same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2007, the
deceased was taken to Doctor Tagore Prasad Hospital,
Badrachalam with burn injuries. According to her statement,
she was married and gave birth to two children. Five years
after marriage, her husband deserted her and she developed
intimacy with the appellant and started living together after
marriage. One year prior to the incident, she sold her house
for Rs.60,000/- and the appellant used to harass her for the
said amount. The statement of the victim was recorded by the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, P.W.19 on 12.07.2007 while
she was undergoing treatment in the said hospital. Thereafter,
the deceased died on 01.08.2007. The First Information Report
was registered for the offence under Sections 498-A and 307
IPC and after the death, the section of law was altered to
Section 302 IPC.
3. P.Ws.1 and 2 are neighbours, P.Ws.3 and 4 are relatives,
P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.6 is the locality
person. P.W.7 is the son of the deceased. All the witnesses
P.Ws.1 to 7 turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not
state anything against appellant.
4. The only evidence on the basis of which, the learned
Sessions Judge convicted the appellant is the dying
declaration, which was made under Ex.P24 before the
Magistrate-P.W.19. In the said Dying Declaration, the
deceased stated that she was given a piece of land in which
she raised walls. However, the said land was sold by the
appellant for an amount of Rs.60,000/- and the appellant was
quarrelling whenever the deceased asked to return the
amount. On the date of incident, the appellant poured
kerosene on her and set her on fire.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that except
the Dying Declaration, there is no other evidence on record
Since the Dying Declaration is a statement which cannot be
subjected to cross-examination, as the appellant is prejudiced,
prayed for acquitting the appellant.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submits that in the Dying Declaration, it is specifically
mentioned that it was the appellant, who poured kerosene on
the deceased and set her on fire. In the said circumstances,
the sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions
Judge is proper and the same cannot be interfered with.
7. The incident of burning the deceased took place on
05.07.2007 and her statement was recorded only on
12.07.2007. The reason for the said delay in recording the
statement of the deceased is not stated by the prosecution. It
is not the case that the deceased was unable to make a
statement during the said five days. Though the statement
was made on 12.07.2007, the deceased died on 01.08.2007
while undergoing treatment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of: i) Maniben W/o.Danabhai Tulshibai Maheria v.
State of Gujarat1 and ii) The State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Subhash @ Pappu2 held that the though there is a time gap in
between the declaration that was made and the death, only for
the said reason, the Dying Declaration does not become
inadmissible and it is also not hit by Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
8. In the instant case, as seen from the dying declaration,
the appellant had taken the amount and failed to repay the
said amount to the wife/deceased. In the said scenario there
were constant fights and on the said day, the deceased was set
on fire in a fit of anger. Considering all the circumstances, the
Sessions Court convicted the appellant for the offence under
Section 304-II IPC and there is no appeal preferred by the
State either against the acquittal under Section 302 of IPC or
(2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 362
2002 LiveLaw(SC) 336
the sentence imposed. The offence is of the year 2007 and 16
years have lapsed.
9. In the said circumstances, this Court deems it proper to
reduce the sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year.
The period of imprisonment undergone by the appellant shall
be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 24.08.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.766 OF 2009
Date: 24.08.2022.
kvs
