Telangana High Court
Nuthala Premkumar, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 12 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.23 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed questioning the conviction
imposed against the appellant/accused vide Judgment dated
12.01.2010, passed in S.C.No.88 of 2009 on the file of the III
Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Asifabad District,
for the offences under Sections 498A and 304 Part-II of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor, and perused the record.
3. A charge sheet was laid under Sections 498A and 302 of
IPC against the appellant. PW.1 is the de facto complainant,
who is the brother of Smt.Rathnamala (hereinafter referred to
as 'the deceased'). The deceased was married to the appellant in
the year 2003. At the time of marriage, dowry was given, and
also other household articles were given. Both the appellant
and the deceased shifted to Naspur. The deceased gave birth to
a baby boy. Before the birth of the baby boy, the deceased
stayed with PW.1 for three months. The disputes started in
between the appellant and the deceased for the reason of the
appellant allegedly having an affair with a woman by name
Jyothi. The deceased used to inform PW.1 and her parents
regarding the appellant having an affair with another woman.
Though the appellant was advised to refrain from meeting the
said woman, he did not listen to the advise and continued the
relation with her.
4. The incident happened on 25.04.2007, when there was a
quarrel between the deceased and the appellant. During the
said fight the deceased poured kerosene on herself and the
appellant lit the fire with a match stick. Immediately, the
neighbours, who are PWs.4, 7, 8, 9, and 10, went to the house
of the appellant, and from there, the deceased was shifted to
the hospital. On the next day, the dying declaration was
recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO)-PW.17. In the
said statement made to MRO, the deceased narrated that there
was a quarrel in between the spouses as the appellant was
having an affair with someone else. She poured kerosene on
herself, and at that juncture, the appellant lit fire. Again the
deceased was examined by the Magistrate-PW.18. Even in the
statement made to the Magistrate, the deceased stated that the
appellant was having an affair with a woman named Jyothi,
and she was appellant's concubine.
5. Even the Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation found that the appellant continued illicit intimacy
with the said woman, and he used to talk with her over phone
in the presence of the deceased. The quarrel on 25.04.2007, in
between the deceased and the appellant was on account of the
appellant talking to the said women over phone.
6. The Investigating Officer having concluded the
investigation filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections
498A and 302 of IPC against the appellant.
7. The learned Sessions Judge found that the offence under
Section 302 of IPC was not made out. However the offence is
punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC since the appellant
did not have any intention to cause death of the deceased, but
he had knowledge that burns may result in death of the
deceased.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that all the neighbours, who were examined as PWs.4,
7, 8, 9, and 10, stated that on hearing the deceased's shouts,
they went to her residence and deceased informed them that
she committed suicide. However, in the statement made to
MRO under Ex.P.19, and under Ex.P.20 the dying declaration
made to the Magistrate, the deceased has falsely stated about
the quarrel in between the spouses and that she poured
kerosene on herself and the appellant lit fire. Learned counsel
further argued that the said version given before the MRO and
the Magistrate was on account of tutoring. Tutoring is evident
from the fact that the deceased informed her brother and
mother in the hospital that she committed suicide. If the
version of the deceased that the appellant burnt her is true, the
same would have been reflected in the complaint filed by PW.1.
It is not mentioned in the complaint that there was any kind of
harassment for dowry.
9. The deceased was constantly fighting with the appellant,
which is stated by her in the two dying declarations. PW.1, who
is the brother of the deceased, also stated regarding the
appellant having an affair with a woman by name Jyothi. The
Investigating Officer-PW.20 also stated that the appellant was
having illicit intimacy with a woman and he was talking with
her over phone in the presence of the deceased. The reason for
the disputes between the appellant and deceased is the said
relation of appellant with Jyothi. However, not a single witness
stated about the whereabouts of the said Jyothi or that they
have seen the appellant with the said Jyothi at any point of
time. In dying declaration made to the Magistrate, the deceased
stated that the appellant was providing maintenance to the said
woman. It appears that the relation of the appellant with the
said Jyothi was the reason for the disputes in between spouses.
However, no reasons are given as to why the Investigating
Officer has not attempted to examine the said Jyothi, or collect
any phone records to substantiate that the appellant was
talking with the said woman. It is not known whether the said
Jyothi existed, since no details were given.
10. The evidence that the appellant was constantly fighting
with the deceased is apparent. The defence of the appellant is
that the allegations regarding the relation with the woman
named Jyothi are false.
11. All the neighbours, i.e., PWs.4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were
declared hostile to the prosecution case. The evidence reveals
that on the date of incident there was a quarrel in between the
spouses. There is no reason as to why the deceased would
speak false against her husband, stating that the appellant lit
fire, when she doused herself with kerosene. Having relations
with another woman during the subsistence of marriage
amounts to cruelty. There is every possibility that the two
statements made by the deceased are true. Accordingly, the
conviction imposed against the appellant is confirmed.
However, the sentence of imprisonment under Sections 498A
and 304 Part-II of the IPC are reduced to six (06) months.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The
trial Court is directed to cause the appearance of the
appellant/accused and send him to prison to serve out the
remaining period of imprisonment.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 12.02.2025
ynk
