Telangana High Court
Smt.G.Muttamma , Muttavva, Hyd., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 13 February, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1379 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by
the judgment dated 13.01.2016, in S.C.No.130 of 2015, on the
file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. The
appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of
IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun
Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.04.2014, around
10:30 p.m. in the night, appellant went to the house of the
deceased. The deceased was studying 6th class and she was
sitting in front of the house. The appellant questioned
deceased as to why she was sitting in front of the house, then
the deceased replied that she had to work. The appellant asked
for kerosene. The deceased informed that kerosene was
available in the front yard. The appellant then took the
kerosene tin, poured kerosene on deceased and set her on fire
and fled. While fleeing, she threatened the deceased not to
inform anyone about the incident, failing which the appellant
would kill her. Hearing the deceased shout for help, the
negibours came there and covered her with a gunny bag. Then
her mother/P.W.1, grandmother, grandfather and one Auto
Ramulu (not examined) shifted her to the hospital.
4. The dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate
around 2 a.m., on 25.04.2014.
5. After the deceased died, inquest proceedings were
conducted and the body was sent for post mortem examination.
Post mortem Doctor opined the cause of death as burning.
6. The charge sheet was laid mainly on the basis of dying
declaration that was recorded by the learned Magistrate/P.W.7.
Even prior to dying declaration being recorded by the
Magistrate, the statement of the victim was recorded by B.Anji
Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police/P.W.5. In the statement given
to P.W.5, victim stated that around 10 p.m. in the night, the
appellant came to her house and took kerosene from the house,
and poured it on her and lit her on fire. At that time,
neighbours came there and poured water on her. Then
P.W.1/mother, maternal grandmother, grandfather,
grandmother's sister, have all taken her to the hospital.
7. The statement recorded by P.W.5 and also statement
recorded by learned Magistrate formed basis to convict the
appellant. P.W.1 is not the witness to the alleged burning of
the deceased. P.W.2 stated that she is a neighbor, seeing the
deceased on flames, they poured water on her and woke up
P.W.1/mother, who was still sleeping in the house. Relatives of
P.W.1 came there and shifted the deceased to the hospital.
8. The paternal grandmother, grandfather, and Auto Ramulu
were not examined by the prosecution during trial, though, they
were cited as L.Ws.4, 5, and 6. All three witnesses were given
up during trial by the Public Prosecutor.
9. The person named as Auto Ramulu was not identified by
the Police during examination.
10. P.W.7 stated that victim was admitted in the hospital with
100% mixed flame burns.
11. The declaration given by the deceased becomes doubtful
for the reason of deceased receiving 100% burns. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay 1 held that
the dying declaration must inspire full confidence in its
truthfulness and correctness. Its intrinsic worth and reliability
(2004) 13 SCC 314
can be determined from its tenor and contents. A woman
sustaining 95% burn injuries, giving unnecessary minute
details in the dying declaration, cannot be relied on.
12. The deceased in the statement recorded by P.W.4, at
00:40 hrs on 25.04.2014, stated as follows:
"I stay at the above mentioned address. Today i.e. on
24-4-2014 about 10 hours concerning water had
quarrel with Gouda Muthamma. At that instance,
Muthamma took the kerosene from my house, poured
on to my body and set on fire. At that time the
neighbors came and put water on my body. After that
my mother, grandmother, china grandmother,
grandfather all together brought me in the Auto to
OGH hospital and admitted. There were quarrels
between me and Muthamma frequently.
The Police have enquired the above said issues, I agree
all is truth and signed her below."
13. In the statement given to P.W.6/Magistrate, at 2:15 a.m.
on 25.04.2014, it is stated as follows:
"Can you tell how your body is burnt?
Ans: My name is Bhavani. I am studying 6th class.
Yesterday night about 10 hours I sweep the front yard
and dumped wastage. Muthamma who stays next to
our house asked me "do you have kerosene (gas no
one) in your house". I said why, she said "I have
work", then I said there is a 5 lts. Can filled with
Kerosene on the shelf in our house. She took that
kerosene in another container and put on my body, lit
the fire on my body with match stick and fled away.
At that time, all our household people were sleeping.
Muthamma said "if you wake up your mother, I will
kill you". By hearing my screams the neighbors have
come and covered a gunny bag on my body and shut
the fires. Then, my mother, grandmother,
grandfather, Auto Ramulu and others brought me to
this hospital in Auto Ramulu Auto. Muthamma was
picking quarrel often with me. She don't tolerate at
all, if she sees me. Our family members won't talk to
Muthamma's family."
14. In the first statement made to P.W.4, the deceased
narrated that there was quarrel in between the appellant and
herself. The quarrel was in between her and the appellant and
in the said quarrel, the appellant took kerosene, poured on her
and set her on fire. Further coming to the statement made
before the Magistrate, it was stated by the victim that the
appellant went to her and asked her whether there was
kerosene and the deceased asked her the reason, then the
appellant replied that she has some work. The appellant then
went into the house, poured kerosene in another container and
doused deceased with kerosene and lit her on fire. The two
statements are contradicting one another.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances in
State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay 2 , held that unnecessary
minute details were given by the deceased when she was in a
serious condition. Similar is the situation in the present case.
The narration before the Magistrate, giving all the details, gives
rise to suspicion regarding its correctness, when the appellant
received 100% burn injuries. In the said circumstances, benefit
of doubt is extended to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal
deserves to be allowed.
16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the
appellant is on bail, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 13.02.2025
dv
(2004)13 SCC 314
