Telangana High Court
Palle Hanumanth Reddy, Rr.Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 23 January, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
and
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.643 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The appellant is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 302 of IPC
vide judgment in S.C.No.328 of 2015 dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Special
Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Mahabubnagar, filed the present appeal.
2. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
3. The deceased is the wife of the appellant. She was taken to the
Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on 03.05.2014 by the appellant.
Since she received burn injuries, the police was informed. The police
constable namely Sri Ramulu (HC No.667), (not examined) of Keshampet
Police Station went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the
deceased. It was received in the police station on 04.05.2014 at 10.00
a.m. Though it was mentioned in the statement that it was recorded on
03.05.2014 at Osmania General Hospital, however time was not
mentioned. The said statement was marked as Ex.P10. Learned
Magistrate was requested to record the Dying Declaration. The
Magistrate received requisition on 03.05.2014 at 8.00 a.m. He went to
the Osmania General Hospital and recorded the Dying Declaration of the
deceased, which is Ex.P7. The third statement was recorded by the Sub-
Inspector of Police/P.W.14 of Keshampet Police Station. P.W.14, having
received Ex.P10, which was recorded by the Police Constable, went to the
Osmania General Hospital and again recorded Ex.P14 statement.
4. In the statement given to the police under Exs.P10 and P14, the
victim narrated that on the date of the incident, there was a quarrel in
between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant, who is the
husband suspected the deceased of having illicit intimacy with someone
else and complained that she was not participating in sexual intercourse
with him, for the said reason, vexed with the attitude of the appellant,
she poured kerosene on to herself and set herself ablaze. Unable to bear
the pain, she shouted, the appellant extinguished flames and shifted her
to the hospital. However, coming to the Dying Declaration given to the
learned Magistrate, the deceased stated that the appellant used to beat
her every day after consuming alcohol. On the date of the incident, he
poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The appellant then fearing
his act of burning the deceased, extinguished flames and took her to the
hospital.
5. P.W.1 is the security guard Venkateshwara Hatcheries, P.W.2 is the
Assistant Administrative Officer in Venkateshwara Hatcheries, P.W.4 is
the mother of the deceased and P.W.9 is the inquest MRO, who stated
that the deceased committed suicide by burning herself after dousing
with kerosene.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
two contradicting versions are given by the victim. In Exs.P10 and P14,
which are the statements recorded by the Head Constable and
P.W.14/Sub-Inspector of Police, respectively, the deceased stated that
she committed suicide by burning herself. However, in her statement to
the Magistrate, the deceased stated that the appellant poured kerosene
on to herself and set fire. The said contradictory versions cannot be
considered to record conviction.
7. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Heeralal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in view of the discrepancies in two dying declarations set
aside the conviction. In Samadhan Dhudaka Koli v. State of
Maharashtra 2 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there were
(2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 671
(2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 705
inconsistent and contradictory dying declarations and allowed the appeal
and acquitted the accused therein.
8. In Heeralal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), it was held as
follows:
"10. The trial court and the High Court came to abrupt conclusions
on the purported possibility that the relatives of the accused may
have compelled the deceased to give a false dying declaration. No
material was brought on record to justify such a conclusion. The
evidence of the Nayab Tahsildar who recorded Ext. D-4 was
examined as PW 8. His statement was clear to the effect that nobody
else was present when he was recording the statement. That being
so, in view of the apparent discrepancies in the two dying
declarations it would be unsafe to convict the appellant.
11. The conviction is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Let the
appellant be released from custody forthwith unless he is required to
be in custody in connection with any other case."
9. In Samadhan Dhudaka Koli v. State of Maharashtra(supra), it
was held as follows:
"18. Consistency in the dying declaration, therefore, is a very relevant
factor. Such a relevant factor cannot be ignored. When a contradictory and
inconsistent stand is taken by the deceased herself in different dying
declarations, they should not be accepted on their face value. In any event,
as a rule of prudence, corroboration must be sought from other evidence
brought on record. In Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of
Karnataka [(2007) 13 SCC 112 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 287 : (2007) 9 Scale
473] where four dying declarations were recorded, this Court opined: (SCC
p. 115, para 7)
"7. Conviction can indisputably be based on a dying declaration. But,
before it can be acted upon, the same must be held to have been rendered
voluntarily and truthfully. Consistency in the dying declaration is the
relevant factor for placing full reliance thereupon. In this case, the
deceased herself had taken contradictory and inconsistent stand in
different dying declarations. They, therefore, should not be accepted on
their face value. Caution, in this behalf, is required to be applied."
The Court noticed that as the deceased attributed the acts primarily
on her parents-in-law and they having been acquitted, it was difficult to
hold that the appellant alone was responsible for causing her death."
10. As already discussed, in the first Dying Declaration given to the
Head Constable and the third Dying Declaration recorded by P.W.14, the
deceased stated that after the fight in between herself and the appellant,
when the appellant expressed that he was suspecting her of having illicit
relation with someone else, she was vexed with such attitude of the
appellant and poured kerosene on herself and lit fire. However, in the
statement to the learned Magistrate, the deceased did not state anything
about the appellant suspecting her or there being a quarrel on the said
day, as stated in Exs.P10 and P14. The deceased stated that the
appellant used to beat her every day after consuming alcohol. On the
date of incident, he poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Apart
from the discrepant and contradicting dying declarations, there is no
other statement made by any of the witnesses to infer that the appellant
had poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire.
11. In view of the facts of the present case, when two different versions
are given by the deceased about her receiving burn injuries, the Court
has to look into other evidence, if any, to corroborate the version of the
appellant causing burns to the deceased. In fact, the other witnesses,
who are P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 stated that the deceased committed suicide.
Even during the inquest proceedings, the witnesses present, stated to
P.W.9, who is Inquest MRO that the deceased committed suicide.
12. It would be unsafe and improper to place reliance on the statement
given to the Magistrate, which is totally contradictory to the version in
Exs.P10 and P14 to convict the appellant. Accordingly, conviction has to
be set aside.
13. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is on
bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date : 23.01.2025
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
and
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.643 OF 2017
Date: 23.01.2025
kvs
