Telangana High Court
S.Gunti Rajaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 1 August, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 600 OF 2015
Between:
S.Gunti Rajaiah
... Appellant/Accused
And
The State of Telangana.
... Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 01.08.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish
to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
_________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
2
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
+ CRL.A.No.600 OF 2015
% Dated 01.08.2024
S.Gunti Rajaiah
...Appellant/Accused
And
$ The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S. Srinivasa Chary
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor for State
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 2023 SCC Online SC 1060
2 (2010) 9 SCC
3
(2021)10 SCC 706
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.600 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender)
This appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 28.04.2015 in S.C.No.165 of 2014
on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at
L.B.Nagar, whereby, appellant/accused was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC; also sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Both the
sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2014,
the deceased went to her mother's house which was in the very
same locality where the accused and deceased were staying.
Around 08.00 A.M, accused went to her in-law's house, picked
up quarrel and abused her, beat her and took her to house
situated at Citizen colony. After reaching house he poured
kerosene on her and set her ablaze and closed the doors. When
she raised hue and cry, the accused opened the doors and
according to the Dying Declaration, he covered her with a
blanket and took her to the hospital. Immediately, message was
given to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Alwal Police Station, who
went to hospital and examined the deceased. Crime was
registered for the offence under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC
and investigation was started. On 18.01.2024, the deceased died
while undergoing treatment at 05.00 PM. Accordingly, police
issued alteration memo seeking alteration of Section 307 of IPC
to 302 of IPC.
3. Inquest proceedings were conducted on the dead body
of the deceased and thereafter, the body was handed over to the
relatives.
4. The entire case rests on the Dying Declaration/Ex.P-6.
The said Dying Declaration was recorded on 15.01.2014 at 12.30
PM by the jurisdictional Magistrate/PW.8. Since there are no
witnesses to the incident of the deceased being set on fire except
the Dying Declaration, it needs careful scrutiny to infer the act of
the appellant, whether it is culpable homicide amounting to
murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is
relevant to extract material part of dying declaration recorded by
the learned Magistrate, which reads as under:
8. So what happened?
Ans: After quarrel took place, we have vacated the said
house and came to Citizen Colony. Since 15 days from the
date of coming to Citizen Colony, it is full of harassment. My
husband is harassing me by suspecting my fidelity. I shall also
give my hard earned money to him.
9. Then?
Ans: Since it was festival yesterday, I went to the house of
my mother. Today morning my husband came to the house of
my mother. Due to earlier quarrel my brother asked my
husband not to come to the house. My husband beat me
throughout the road. At about 8.00 AM I was preparing tea on
the stove. Since my brother did not give respect to him, my
husband continued to beat me but still I was calm.
10. What happened thereafter?
Ans: I asked my husband as to why he is beating me. On
that he started beating me severely. My husband told me that I
am listening to their words and not listening to his words. My
husband threatened to kill me and opened the lid of kerosene
stove, poured kerosene on me, came to hall, closed the door of
the kitchen from outside, from hall he lit match stick and
thrown the same into the kitchen room through underneath
the door and fire engulfed me.
11. What happened thereafter?
Ans: Due to flames I raised hue and cry and on that he
opened the door and while I was trying to cover myself with
blanket, my husband covered me with a blanket.
12. What happened thereafter?
Ans: After witnessing incident, my younger son went to
my mother and informed the same to them.
13. Where is your mother's house situated?
Ans: Ambedkar Nagar within a short distance.
14. What is the occupation of your husband?
Ans: Previously used to work as Attender in Municipality.
Presently not doing anything. Under intoxication my husband
says that I am having intimacy with others.
15. Do you want to say anything more?
Ans: He is sadist. I cannot say anything more. I am in pain.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly laid
emphasis on the fact that even according to prosecution case, the
victim received 95% burnt injuries, for which reason, the version
of prosecution that the Dying Declaration was given by the
deceased cannot be believed. Further, there are no eye witnesses
to the incident apart from the deceased. Her statement can only
be assessed on the ground of probabilities since the statement
cannot be subjected to cross examination. In fact, in her
statement she stated that the appellant poured kerosene on her,
closed the door and then lit her with a match stick. The said
version given by the deceased is highly improbable and goes to
the version of Pws.1, 2 and 5, who stated that she was initially set
on fire and later the doors were closed. Apart from the said
discrepancy, there are several other discrepancies regarding the
time of the inquest being conducted and the time when the
deceased and others reached the hospital. All these minor
discrepancies in fact would have an impact on the correctness of
the prosecution case. Since such discrepancies gives raise to any
amount of doubt regarding the version projected by the
prosecution case, benefit of doubt has to be extended.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State would submit that the Dying Declaration made by the
deceased cannot be rejected only on the ground that the
deceased received 95% burnt injuries. In fact, it is the version of
the Magistrate that prior to regarding the statement and also
after the recording the statement, Doctor had certified regarding
the mental status of the deceased that she was coherent and
conscious to give the statement. In the said circumstances, the
Dying Declaration cannot be rejected.
7. In the case where the Dying Declaration only falls for
consideration, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Irfan @ Naka Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh 1 held as follows:
The juristic theory regarding the acceptability of a dying
declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity,
1 2023 SCC Online SC 1060
when the party is at the point of death and when every
hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood
is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful
consideration to speak only the truth. Notwithstanding
the same, great caution must be exercised in considering
the weight to be given to this species of evidence on
account of the existence of many circumstances which
may affect their truth. The situation in which a man is on
the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law
to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this
reason, the requirements of oath and cross- examination
are dispensed with. Since the accused has no power of
cross- examination, the courts insist that the dying
declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full
confidence of the court in its truthfulness and
correctness. The court, however, should always be on
guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as
a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of
imagination.
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atbir
Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi2 held as follows:
2 (2010) 9 SCC
"22. The analysis of the above decisions clearly shows
that:
(i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if
it inspires the full confidence of the court.
(ii) The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in
a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and
that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or
imagination.
(iii) Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is
true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any
further corroboration.
(iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that
the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of
conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring
corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.
(v) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should
not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity
such as the deceased was unconscious and could never
make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain
all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.
(viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be
discarded.
(ix) When the eyewitness affirms that the deceased was
not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying
declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail.
(x) If after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is
true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to
make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent,
there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of
conviction, even if there is no corroboration."
9. The Dying Declaration was recorded by the learned
Magistrate PW.16 after he received intimation. Having gone
through Ex.P16, all the pre-requisites for recording Dying
Declaration were followed by the learned Magistrate. Initially he
questioned the deceased to find out whether she was in fit
condition and after he was satisfied with her answers, he also
sought the opinion of the Duty Doctor who certified that the
patient was in a fit state of mind, conscious and coherent to give
her statement. Learned Magistrate, then proceeded to record the
Dying Declaration. Even, after recording the statement, the
Doctor/Sunitha certified that patient was conscious and
coherent throughout recording the statement. Further, 15
questions were asked by the learned Magistrate. To all the
questions, the deceased had given rational answers and we do
not find any reason to disbelieve the statement since the answers
were given after understanding the question. We have no
hesitation to hold that the Dying Declaration was made by the
deceased in a fit and conscious state of mind.
10. The deceased had clearly stated that the appellant went
and brought back the deceased by beating her. Thereafter, he
poured kerosene on her and lit fire to her and closed the door.
However, immediately after hearing her cry in pain, he opened
the doors, covered her with blanket and took her to the hospital
according to the Dying Declaration.
11. Considering the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mohd. Rafiq @ Kallu vs The State of Madhya Pradesh3,
the question that has to be determined by this Court is whether
the accused was sure that his act would definitely cause death
has to be looked into. In the present case, though it cannot be
disputed that it was the appellant who had poured kerosene and
lit fire to deceased, however, immediately after hearing her cries,
appellant opened the doors, covered her with blanket and took
her to the hospital. In the said circumstances of the present case,
when there was fighting among appellant and deceased since
morning, and the appellant had set fire to her in fit of anger and
immediately covered her with blanket to put off flames and took
her to hospital. This intent of definitely causing death of the
deceased by his acts is missing.
12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that
the acts of the appellant would fall within the four corners of
Section 304-I of IPC but not under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, the
(2021)10 SCC 706
conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302 of IPC, is set
aside and the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section
304-I of IPC and he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of ten (10) years. The fine component remains unaltered.
13. This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 01.08.2024
mmr
