Telangana High Court

The State Of Telengana vs Rakasi Narendar Reddy on 24 October, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                               AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1216 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)

The State is questioning the Judgment of acquittal of the

respondent/accused for the offence under section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Vandana

who is the daughter of PW.1 was married to the appellant on

18.11.2020. At the time of marriage, dowry was given. The

appellant started harassing her physically and mentally for

additional dowry and several times, she complained to her

mother-PW.1 and sister-PW.3, regarding the harassment meted

out to her by the appellant and his parents.

3. The incident happened on 27.04.2011 around 1:30 p.m.,

when the appellant went to the house in a drunken state and

picked up quarrel with the deceased and asked her to bring

Rs.10,000/- as additional dowry. However, the deceased did not

get the amount and for the said reason she was beaten up. During

the said confrontation with his wife, the appellant poured

Kerosene on her and set her ablaze with an intention to kill her.

The deceased shouted for help and the accused also caught hold

of her for which reason he sustained injuries on both hands.

PWs.4 to 6 who are the immediate neighbours went to rescue her,

extinguished the flames and taken her, first, to Government Area

Hospital, Wanaparthy and thereafter she was shifted to

Government Headquarters Hospital, Mahabubnagar. While

undergoing treatment, she died on the next day i.e. 28.04.2011.

4. The learned Magistrate-PW.18 recorded the statement of the

deceased in the hospital. In the said statement, she stated that

her husband i.e. appellant poured Kerosene on her and lit fire.

5. Learned Sessions Judge having charged the appellant for the

offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, examined

witnesses PWs.1 to 19 on behalf of the prosecution and also

marked Exs.P1 to P17. M.Os.1 to 3 were also placed on record.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, having gone through the

evidence found that no case was made out against the accused for

the following grounds.

i) The three independent witnesses PWs.4 to 6 did not

support the prosecution case and were treated hostile by

the prosecution. They were eye-witnesses to the alleged

incident.

ii) PWs.7 and 8 who are the witnesses to the Panchanama

conducted at scene of offence have also turned hostile.

iii) The independent witnesses PWs.9 and 10 to the inquest

proceedings have turned hostile.

iv) Admittedly, the deceased was taken to the Government

Hospital, Wanaparthy before shifting to the head quarters

at Mahabubnagar. PW.16 who is prosecution witness has

said that according to the record in the hospital, the

deceased sustained burns, accidentally while preparing

food in the house.

v) The said MLC register and the information given at the

earliest point of time was suppressed by the prosecution.

vi) The defence of the accused is that she received burns

accidentally and he tried to extinguish the flames, as

such, he received burn injuries. It is stated so during his

examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., which is

corroborated by PW.16-Investigating Officer.

vii) PW.16 admitted that relatives of deceased were with her

all the time after she was taken to Wanaparthy hospital.

7. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

the Dying Declaration can be made as basis to reverse the

judgment of the acquittal, when the deceased was examined and it

was certified that the patient was conscious and in fit state of

mind. After recording the statement also it was certified by the

Doctor that the patient was conscious, coherent and in fit state of

mind.

8. During deceased statement, after certification by the doctor,

the deceased specifically stated that at about 1:00 p.m. there was

a quarrel between her and her husband (appellant) and while she

was cooking rice, her husband poured Kerosene on her and set

fire, and the husband is responsible.

9. No doubt, the Dying Declaration can be made sole basis for

conviction. However, the said statement made by the deceased has

to be looked into and corroboration sought when no specific

details regarding the alleged harassment for additional dowry are

given as alleged by the prosecution witnesses who are related to

the deceased. PWs.1 and 3 stated regarding the reason for the

appellant burning the deceased with Kerosene was for not meeting

the additional demand of Rs.10,000/-. However, in the Dying

Declaration, the deceased stated that accused had consumed

Alcohol and there was a quarrel. The reason for quarrel was that

the deceased asked him not to drink liquor. For the said reason,

he poured Kerosene and lit her on fire.

10. The very basic version of the prosecution that the accused

committed murder is pursuant to a demand of additional dowry

which was not made. In the statement made by deceased, the

reason given is that the deceased asked the accused not to

consume alcohol for which reason, he set her on fire. These are

two contradictory versions.

11. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)

and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing

with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to

consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a

possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been

analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the

presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the

appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of

the trial court rendering acquittal.

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

12. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the

settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in

reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:

"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:

ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.

vii)This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

13. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are based

on record and it is not explained as to why the version of the

deceased receiving accidental burns which was stated at the

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

earliest point of time was suppressed by prosecution. Admittedly,

it was the independent witnesses who had taken her to the

hospital. PW.16 admitted that the persons who were present along

with the deceased had informed regarding receiving accidental

burns. The hospital records are deliberately, suppressed by the

prosecution. Under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act,

presumption is that when documents which are available are

suppressed, adverse inference has to be drawn against the party