Telangana High Court
Appala Srinivas, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 27 June, 2024
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1118 OF 2010
Between:
Appala Srinivas,
S/o. Appala Agnhothudu
... Appellant/
Accused
And
The State of A.P. rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 27.06.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
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 Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No. 1118 OF 2010
% Dated 27.06.2023
# Appala Srinivas,
S/o.Appala Anghothudu
...Appellant/
Accused
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T.L.Nayan Kumar
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor for State
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1118 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction dated 05.08.2010 in S.C.No.104 of
2010, on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offence
under Section 304-II of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-
State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that Investigating
Officer/P.W.11 having received information of woman burning,
went to the Osmania General Hospital on 10.01.2009 at 10:00
a.m. and recorded the statement of the deceased. In the said
statement, the deceased informed that she was married to the
appellant herein 12 years prior to the incident and they had a
daughter. For two years, after marriage, the accused treated
her properly, thereafter, started harassing her on the ground
that the deceased was having affairs with others and was
beating her on a regular basis in a drunken condition.
5. Deceased further stated that on 09.01.2009 around 7:45
p.m., the appellant went to the house in a drunken condition.
While the deceased was sitting in front of the house, he took
her into the house, beat her and threw kerosene on her from a
plastic bottle and lit her with match box. The deceased ran out
in flames. P.W.9 who was the neighbor witnessed the deceased
running out of the house in flames. The appellant was present
and called for Ambulance. She was taken in an Ambulance to a
private hospital and from there to Government hospital.
6. In the statement made to the Police, which was treated as
dying declaration, the deceased stated the above facts that it
was the appellant who poured kerosene on her and set her
ablaze. The said statement was recorded by the Police at 10
a.m. Half an hour thereafter, the learned Magistrate/P.W.10
recorded the statement of the deceased. In the said statement
also, she narrated that the appellant was beating her in a
drunken condition regularly and on the date of incident, he
poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.
7. Learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses
P.Ws.1 to 11 and also considering the documents Ex.P.1 to P.9
brought on record by the prosecution, found that the appellant
was guilty of the offence under Section 304-II of IPC and not
under Section 302 of IPC. Learned Sessions Judge also
acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of
IPC.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the investigation in the present case had commenced even
before the registration of FIR. As seen from the FIR/Ex.P.4, it
was registered on 10.01.2009 at 10 a.m., however, the
occurrence reflects on 09.01.2009 at 7:45 p.m. Once the
deceased was shifted in an Ambulance, which is a private
Ambulance, the Police should have known the incident.
However, no statement was recorded till next day and the said
delay in recording the statement is not explained by the
prosecution.
9. Learned counsel further argues that from the evidence of
P.W.1/brother, P.Ws.2 and 3 it is apparent that the relation in
between the appellant and the deceased was not cordial. In
fact, P.W.1 admitted that he did not like the marriage of the
deceased with the appellant and he never went to the house of
the accused. In the said circumstances, the defence version
that P.Ws.1 to 3 had tutored the deceased even before giving
the statement to the Police and the Magistrate has to be
believed. Further, the conduct of the appellant also falsifies the
case of the prosecution. He had shifted the deceased to the
hospital, stayed in the hospital and till funeral had taken place,
he was very much present. He had never absconded and his
conduct reflects that he has nothing to do with the alleged
incident as projected by the prosecution. Counsel further
argued that the version of appellant pouring kerosene is
incorrect and the Doctor who endorsed on the dying declaration
was not examined. In the said circumstances of non-
examination of Doctor to certify the health condition and in the
background of tutoring by the relatives, no reliance can be
placed on both the dying declarations.
10. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
would submit that the witnesses who were examined by the
prosecution have clearly stated regarding harassment that was
meted out to the deceased. In both the statements recorded,
the deceased has mentioned that it was the appellant who has
poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on flames. In the
said circumstances, minor discrepancies in registration of crime
or delay are of no consequence.
11. Two dying declarations are admittedly made by the
deceased. At 10 a.m., the Police recorded her statement in
which she specifically narrated regarding harassment of the
accused on regular basis in drunken condition on a suspicion
that she was having affairs with others. The very same version
is given at 10:35 a.m. to the Magistrate. The Doctor, who was
present at the time of dying declaration endorsed on the dying
declaration that the deceased was conscious, coherent and in
fit state of mind throughout recording of the statement. The
said endorsement was spoken to by P.W.10/Magistrate who
had recorded the statement of the deceased.
12. The assumption that P.Ws.1 to 3 had tutored the
deceased before giving statement cannot be accepted. The
denied suggestions during cross-examination have no
evidentiary value. Nothing is placed on record or adduced by
the accused during the course of trial to show that P.Ws.1 to 3
were taking to the deceased at the time of being treated either
in the private hospital or in the Government hospital. In the
absence of any such evidence to show that P.Ws.1 to 3 met the
deceased and talked to her, prior to recording of statement by
Police and Magistrate the question of accepting the version of
tutoring does not arise.
13. However, it is consistently stated by P.Ws.1 to 3 that the
accused was harassing the deceased saying that she was
having affairs with others. The said version is corroborated by
the version of the deceased in both the statements made before
the Police as well as before the Magistrate. There is nothing
inconsistent or contradictory that has crept into either in the
statement before the Police or in the statement made before the
Magistrate.
14. I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned
Sessions Judge in convicting the appellant for the offence under
Section 304-II of IPC and accordingly, conviction is confirmed.
However, the incident is of the year, 2009 and nearly 15 years
have passed by. According to the counsel, the appellant has
responsibility of his daughter and parents. Accordingly,
considering the circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment is
reduced to 5 years.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The
trial Court shall cause appearance of the accused and send him
to the prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence
imposed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 27.06.2024
Note
LR copy to be marked
(B/o) dv
