Mantoori Narsimha Chary, R.R.Dist. vs P.P., Hyd
2024 Latest Caselaw 2822 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2822 Tel
Judgement Date : 25 July, 2024

Telangana High Court

Mantoori Narsimha Chary, R.R.Dist. vs P.P., Hyd on 25 July, 2024

                                  1




  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                   AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.265 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated

04.12.2014 in S.C.No.298 of 2013, on the file of VI Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet, Medak District, whereby

the appellant was convicted for murdering his wife by setting

her on fire on 17.03.2013.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused

and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased

and the appellant were married 10 years prior to the incident.

Till the birth of their son, they lived happily for nearly 7

years. Thereafter, the appellant started suspecting that the

deceased was having illicit intimacy with others. On the said

ground, he used to pick up quarrel frequently with the

deceased. The parents/P.Ws.1 and 2 and other elders also

intervened and pacified the accused. They requested him not

to harass the deceased. However, he did not change his

attitude and continued to harass her. Twenty days prior to

the incident, P.W.1 who is the father of the deceased

requested the appellant to send his daughter to his house.

However, appellant did not send her, for which reason,

panchayat was held. Again the elders though convinced the

accused not to harass the deceased, he continued

harassment.

4. The incident happened on 17.03.2013 in the night

when the appellant picked up quarrel with the deceased by

stating that she had illicit intimacy with others. The

deceased stated that the appellant poured kerosene and lit

her on fire in her statement to Police in the hospital. Ex.P.22

is the statement given to the Police initially. In the said

statement, she stated that on the night, the accused alleged

that she was having illicit intimacy with others and poured

kerosene on the sarees and set them on fire. When she

intervened, the appellant enraged with her conduct, poured

kerosene on her also and set her on fire. She ran out of the

house and hearing her shout, the neighbours came there and

took her to the hospital. Requisition was also given to the

learned Magistrate under Ex.P.20. In the statement made to

the learned Magistrate also, she narrated that the appellant

was suspecting her character and used to beat her on a daily

basis. On the date of incident, he poured kerosene on her

and lit fire. She ran out of the house shouting and the

neighbours took her to the hospital.

5. Learned Sessions Judge had examined both the dying

declarations/Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 and also corroborating

statements of parents and other witnesses who narrated that

the accused/appellant was constantly harassing the

deceased suspecting her character, accordingly conviction

was recorded.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

submit that two different versions were given by the deeased

in Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22. Initially when she narrated the

incident to the Inspector, she stated that there was galata in

between them, for which reason, the appellant burnt her

sarees and when questioned, kerosene was poured on her

and set her on fire. However, in the statement before the

Magistrate, she omitted the said factum of burning sarees,

however, stated that accused had poured kerosene on her.

Since two different versions are given in the dying

declarations, the same cannot be believed. If the

contradictory versions given by the deceased are disbelieved,

the only evidence that remains is one of harassment, which is

punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits

that all the witnesses have clearly narrated that the appellant

used to harass and beat the deceased regularly and on a

daily basis suspecting her character. That itself would go to

show that he had intention to cause the death of the

deceased. Since the intention is clear to commit murder, the

Court below was correct in coming to a conclusion and

convicting the accused under Section 302 of IPC and

sentencing him to life imprisonment.

8. Having gone through the evidence of witnesses and also

dying declarations, the fact that accused was suspecting the

character of the deceased and harassing her is consistently

stated by all the witnesses. However, on the date of incident,

when statement was given to the Police, the deceased stated

that accused was in a fit of anger and burnt her sarees

pursuant to an altercation. It appears that differences

between the spouses lead to fight on the said date and the

sarees of the deceased were burnt. When the deceased

intervened, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased

and lit her on fire. We do not find any discrepancy or

contradiction in between the statements made to the Police

and Magistrate under Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22.

9. The difference between murder and causing death

which is culpable homicide has been discussed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and also High Courts in several

judgments. In Mohd.Rafiq Alias Kallu vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

" The question of whether in a given case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 302 of IPC or culpable homicide of either description, punishable under Section 304 of IPC, has engaged the attention of courts in India for over one-and-a-half- century, since the enactment of the IPC. A welter of case law, on the aforesaid aspect exists, including perhaps several hundred rulings by the Supreme Court. The use of the term "likely" in several places in respect of culpable homicide, highlights the element of uncertainty that the act of the accused may or may not have killed the person. Section 300 IPC which defines "murder", however refrains from the use of the term likely, which reveals absence of ambiguity left on behalf of the accused. The accused is for sure that his act will definitely cause death. It is often difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes. Such difference lies in the degree of the act. There is a

(2021)10 SCC 706

very wide variance of degree of intention and knowledge among both the crimes."

10. As seen from the evidence, the events that transpired

on the date of incident, initially, the appellant in a fit of anger

had burnt sarees of the deceased and on account of quarrel,

he also poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire. In the

said circumstances, though accused had knowledge

regarding his acts that his acts would lead to death of the

deceased, however as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

intention and knowledge involved in murder and culpable

homicide not amounting to murder has to be assessed on the

basis of facts of each case. The difference would lie in the

degree of the act. In the present circumstances of the case, it

cannot be said that there was a definitive intent on part of