Telangana High Court
Shaik Ayub, R.R. Dt. vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 18 June, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.85 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Sambasivarao Naidu)
The sole accused in a sessions case vide S.C.No.729
of 2013 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeks to assail the Judgment
and conviction directed by the trial Court vide Judgment
dated 19.11.2014 by way of this present criminal appeal
which was filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.
2. The appellant herein was found guilty by the
trial Court for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default to pay the find he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for three (3) months.
3. The appellant has claimed that trial Court
committed an error by convicting him without proper
appreciation of evidence. There is no incriminating
evidence to show that he has committed the alleged
PSK,J & SSRN, J
Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015
offence. There are no eye witnesses to the offence. The
evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is highly unbelievable. The trial
Court ignoring the evidence wherein it is clearly stated that
the deceased used to come to the house late nights and
whenever the appellant questioned her, she used to give
evasive replies, thereby the appellant gave a serious
warning to mend her way. Thereby, she might have
suffered humiliation and might have lit fire to herself only
to threaten the appellant herein. But, unfortunately she
succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the appellant prayed
for setting aside the impugned Judgment and also prayed
for his acquittal for the charge under Section 302 Indian
Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
4. As could be seen from the material averments
made in the charge sheet that was filed against the
appellant, it is alleged that the marriage between the
appellant and the deceased/wife by name Shahnaz Begum
was performed about 10 years prior to the date of alleged
offence. During the matrimonial life, the couple had two (2)
sons and subsequently, the appellant having addicted to
alcohol, use to quarrel with his wife very often and
PSK,J & SSRN, J
Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015
subjected her to harassment and cruelty. It is also alleged
by the prosecution that on the intervening night of 08/09-
09-2013 the appellant came to the house in a drunken
condition, had a quarrel with his wife and beat her and
later when she slept, at about 05:00 A.M., the accused
poured petrol on her body and set her ablaze. Thereby, she
started screaming due to burn injuries. The appellant ran
away from the place of offence. The cries of the deceased
attracted the neighbours, who went to her rescue and
shifted her to hospital. On receipt of information from the
Osmania General Hospital, PW4-Assistant Sub Inspector of
Police rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of
the deceased. He sent a requisition to PW8 for recording
her dying declaration. Based on the statement recorded by
PW4 from the deceased, a case in Crime No.338 of 2013
has been registered by PW10. However, in view of death of
the deceased while undergoing treatment, the police have
altered the section of law, they have examined the material
witness and after completing other formalities, PW11-
Inspector of Police, Mailardevpally laid charge sheet against
PSK,J & SSRN, J
Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015
the appellant with an allegation that he has committed the
offences punishable under Section 302 and 498-A IPC.
5. The trial Court having received the case records
from the District Court, examined the appellant herein and
framed charges under Section 498-A and 302 of IPC.
However, the appellant herein denied the accusation and
claimed to have been trial. In order to prove the charges
the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1
to P10. MO1-a bottle was also marked by the prosecution.
The trial Court having accepted the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses found the appellant herein guilty for
the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him
under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. The trial Court was of the
opinion that the prosecution could not prove the charge
under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly acquitted him for
the said charge under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The appellant
herein was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and
also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default in payment of fine,
he has to suffer imprisonment for (3) month.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant while
attacking the discrepancy in the dying declaration recorded
PSK,J & SSRN, J
Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015
by PW8 has submitted that according to the statement
made by the deceased before the Asst. Sub Inspector it is
stated as if the appellant poured petrol on the deceased.
Whereas in the statement recorded by PW8 it was stated
that the appellant poured kerosene on her body. Therefore,
it creates any amount of doubt whether the appellant has
committed this offence. The learned counsel has also
argued that there is no eye witness to the alleged offense
and the offence said to have been committed in the early
hours of 09.09.2013 and while the deceased was sleeping.
If really the appellant poured petrol/kerosene she could
have woke and raise cries, but in this case there is no
acceptable evidence to believe that the appellant himself
set his wife ablaze. The evidence produced by the
prosecution would suggest that the deceased might have
committed suicide, may be because of her personal reasons
or ill health, but, she gave a false statement against the
appellant herein. Thereby, the appellant is entitled to
acquittal. But the trial Court on an incorrect appreciation
of evidence, recorded a finding as if the appellant
PSK,J & SSRN, J
Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015
committed an offence under Section 302 IPC, thereby,
prayed for setting aside the judgment.
7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor
has argued that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who
immediately rushed to the scene of offence clearly indicates
that having heard the cries of the deceased, they rushed to
the house of appellant and found the deceased who was on
flames and they have also noticed the appellant running
away from the scene of offence. The evidence of these two
witnesses is further corroborated by statement made by
the deceased before PW8 and in the said statement she
categorically informed the learned Magistrate that the
appellant herein poured kerosene on her body and set her
ablaze. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the
impugned judgment and the evidence of PWs 1 to 11
categorically shows that the appellant has committed the
offence under Section 302 IPC and the trial Court rightly
convicted him for the said charge. Therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. There is no dispute about the relationship
between the appellant and the deceased. Similarly there is
PSK,J & SSRN, J
Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015
no dispute about the admission of the deceased to the
Government hospital with burn injuries and her death
while undergoing treatment for the said injuries. The
record placed before the Court clearly shows that on
receipt of intimation from hospital authorities on the
admission of deceased with burn injuries, PW4 rushed to
the hospital and recorded her statement under Ex.P4. by
the time PW4 recorded the statement, none were present
with the deceased, thereby there was no question of
somebody influencing her to give a false statement against
the appellant. According to the statement before the first
investigating officer, the deceased categorically stated that
her husband who is appellant before this Court having
addicted to alcohol used to quarrel with her and used to
harass her both physically and mentally. On the previous
night, he returned home in inebriated state and had a
quarrel with her and beat her and in the early hours of
next day while she was sleeping he poured petrol on her
and set her ablaze by throwing a burning matchstick. She
has also informed PW4 that when she raised hue and cry,
PSK,J & SSRN, J
Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015
the house owner came to the place of offence and tried to
extinguish the fire.
9. It is also on record that PW8 having received
requisition from the police concerned, rushed to the
hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under
Ex.P6. The deceased has given the same version before
PW8 except discrepancy with regard to the liquid that was
used for commission of the offence. It is true in Ex.P4 the
deceased has stated as if the appellant poured petrol on
her body and in her statement before PW8 she has
informed that the appellant poured kerosene on her
person. The scene of offence panchanama placed before the
Court indicates there was petrol can at the place of offence.
By the time PW4 recorded the statement of the deceased
she must have been under the pain of the burn injuries.
Thereby, the simple discrepancy with regard to petrol or
kerosene cannot be taken into consideration for doubting
the involvement of the appellant.
10. The two independent witnesses who were
examined as PWs 1 and 2 categorically stated before the
Court at about 04:30 or 04:45 A.M., they heard cries from
PSK,J & SSRN, J
Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015
the house of deceased. They rushed to the place of offence.
The appellant herein pushed them away and ran away
from the place of offence. They found the deceased in
flames. For their enquiry she revealed that the
accused/appellant poured petrol on her person and lit fire.
Apart from these two witnesses, the prosecution has
examined two more witnesses as PWs 3 and 4. According
to the evidence of PW3 the appellant who was an auto
driver, used to spend his entire earning for consuming
liquor. He used to suspect his wife and used to quarrel
with her frequently. Therefore, he gave a report against the
appellant, but on his assurance they had a compromise
with the appellant. But, even after the said compromise
there was no change in his behavior. Whereas, according to
PW4 who is co-brother of the appellant herein on receipt of
a phone call that the appellant burnt his wife and she was
shifted to Osmania hospital, he rushed to the hospital and
when he enquired the deceased, he was told that the
appellant herein poured petrol on her body and lit her fire.
Though these four witnesses were cross examined by the
defense, nothing was elicited to believe that they were
PSK,J & SSRN, J
Crl.A.No. 85 OF 2015
deposing falsehood against the appellant. There was no
necessity for the two independent witnesses, namely PWs 1
and 2 to depose falsehood against the appellant. The
evidence of these four witnesses coupled with the
statements made by the deceased vide Ex.P4 and P6
categorically shows that the appellant herein having
quarreled with his wife on the previous night, poured petrol
on her body and set her ablaze. Thereby, the trial Court
rightly found the appellant herein guilty for the offence
under Section 302 IPC, as such there are no grounds to set
aside the impugned Judgment. Therefore, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed,
confirming the Judgment of the trial Court.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
___________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
Date: 18.06.2024
PSSK
