Telangana High Court
Pallamaina Surender, Hanmakonda., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 6 February, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1346 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the
judgment dated 14.09.2017 in S.C.No.384 of 2011, on the file
of the Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Cases-Cum-VII
Additional District Judge at Waragnal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun
Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State.
3. The appellant who is the husband of the deceased was
charged for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC.
Learned Sessions Judge after considering the case on record,
acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of
IPC, however, convicted him for the offence under Section
302 of IPC.
4. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased who lodged the
complaint. She narrated that in the year, 2003, her deceased
daughter's marriage was performed with the appellant.
Dowry was given and they lived happily for some time. They
were blessed with two daughters. The appellant started
suspecting character of the deceased and used to beat her on
a regular basis. Panchayats were held thrice and deceased
unable to bear harassment of the appellant, started living
with P.W.1 for some time. The deceased was harassed for
additional dowry. The incident happened in the house of
sister of the appellant in the night. P.W.1 was informed by
the sister of the appellant that the appellant stabbed the
deceased. Due to the stab injuries, while undergoing
treatment, deceased died in the hospital.
5. P.W.1 turned hostile during trial and stated that when
all the family members consumed liquor, due to drowsiness,
her deceased daughter fell on a knife and got injured.
Similarly, other witnesses also turned hostile to the
prosecution case.
6. The basis for convicting the appellant is the dying
declaration which was recorded by P.W.25/Magistrate in the
hospital on 20.03.2011. P.W.25 went to the hospital
pursuant to the requisition that was given by the Police.
After going to the hospital, P.W.25 ascertained the condition
of the patient. The duty Doctor signed underneath printed
certification. The printed format reads, "The patient is
conscious and coherent for recording dying declaration".
Thereafter, P.W.25 put preliminary questions to the
deceased. The Magistrate endorsed from the answers given
by the deceased to the preliminary questions, that she was
satisfied that the victim is conscious and coherent and
started recording dying declaration. To the 7th question
posed as to what happened, the deceased stated that while
she was sleeping, the appellant stabbed her with a knife.
Other questions were also asked by the learned Magistrate,
however, deceased did not involve any of the other accused
apart from the appellant being responsible for her injuries.
After the questions and answers were recorded by the
Magistrate, the Doctor in writing endorsed that the "patient is
conscious and coherent throughout the recording".
7. The deceased underwent treatment in MGM hospital.
P.W.10 is the Surgeon who stated that on 20.03.2011, the
deceased was admitted in the hospital and when enquired,
she stated that her husband stabbed her, around 11:10 p.m.,
on that day. P.W.10 examined her and found that she
sustained two stab injuries in the abdomen and on the same
day, surgery was conducted. P.W.10 during surgery further
found that there was two liters of blood present in the
peritoneal cavity of abdomen, four perforations to the
intestine and there was a tear in the mesentery. While
undergoing treatment, the deceased absconded from hospital
on 25.03.2011. Ex.P.13 is the case sheet maintained at the
hospital.
8. P.W.11 is the Doctor who examined the deceased on
25.03.2011 at 5:30 p.m. P.W.11 stated that she was brought
to the hospital by one of her relatives and the case history
was that she was treated in the MGM hospital, from there
she absconded and was taken to SVR hospital. The deceased
was in a state of shock and ultimately died on 27.03.2011
due to cardio respiratory arrest.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the death was not a direct consequence of
stabbing. Further, the witnesses have turned hostile to the
prosecution case. Only on the basis of dying declaration, the
appellant was sentenced and convicted by the learned
Sessions Judge. In fact, the dying declaration recorded by
the learned Magistrate is contradicting with the statement
given to the Police which is Ex.P.36. For the said reason of
contradictory versions given by the deceased, one to the
Police, another to the Magistrate, the statement made by the
deceased has to be eschewed from consideration.
10. We have gone through the statement made to the
Magistrate, which is Ex.P.32 and also to the Police which is
Ex.P.36. In both statements, the deceased consistently
stated that it was the appellant who had stabbed her with a
knife. There is a slight variation regarding presence of other
family members. The said variation in the present facts is of
no consequence, since the version of the victim that it was
the appellant who stabbed her around 11:10 p.m. is
consistent in both the statements.
11. The cause of death was on account of cardio respiratory
arrest. Neither P.W.1 nor PME Doctor stated that death was
a direct consequence of the injuries to the intestine. In the
absence of proof that the injuries inflicted by the appellant
has resulted in the death, the question of conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 of IPC does not arise. The
Doctor did not say that the death of the deceased, due to
cardio respiratory arrest, was a direct consequence of the
injuries inflicted by the appellant.
12. However, as seen from the injuries received by the
victim, there were two perforations in the intestine, since, the
appellant stabbed deceased twice. In the said circumstances,
we deem it appropriate to convict the appellant under Section
307 of IPC while setting aside the conviction under Section
302 of IPC. The appellant is sentenced to undergo 7 years of
rigorous imprisonment.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
Since the appellant is on bail, he shall be summoned by the
Court concerned and sent to prison to serve out the
remaining part of sentenced imposed by this Court.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 06.02.2025
dv
