Telangana High Court

Motla Mogili, Warangal Dist. vs The State Of Ts., Rep. By P.P. on 30 January, 2025

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                                 AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1105 OF 2017


JUDGMENT:

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

The appellant was convicted under sections 498-A and 302 of

Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous

imprisonment under Section 498-A and life imprisonment under

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri C.Damodar Reddy

appearing for the appellant and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State.

3. The incident took place on 10.01.2014 around 1.00 p.m.

According to the prosecution case, the appellant was addicted to

alcohol and used to pick up quarrel with his wife, frequently. The

parents of the deceased were neighbours. The appellant was not

doing any work on a daily basis. On 9.01.2014, there was a quarrel

and again on 10.01.2014 in the morning, the appellant left home,

but he could not get any work and returned home in an intoxicated

condition at 1.00 p.m. There was again a quarrel in between the

appellant and the deceased, for which reason, the deceased went to

her parents' house. Her parents are neighbours. The appellant

also went there, poured Kerosene on her and lit her on fire with

match stick. When she was in flames, the appellant and others

extinguished the fire and took her to the MGM Hospital, Warangal.

While undergoing treatment, she died on 19.01.2014.

4. After the deceased was taken to the hospital, on 10.01.2014

around 4.25 p.m., the learned Magistrate PW.14 commenced

recording statement of the deceased. In the statement to the

Magistrate, the deceased narrated that her parents were staying

beside their house. The appellant used to come home in a drunken

condition, regularly, and harassed her. Five years prior to the

incident, a complaint was lodged with Mattewada Police by her.

However, the matter was resolved by the Police. On the date of

incident, the appellant poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire.

Hearing her shout, the parents of the deceased came there, poured

water on her and shifted her to the hospital. In the statement made

to the Magistrate, she further stated that the appellant was having

illegal relations with other women.

5. PW.16-S.I of Police, recorded the statement of the deceased

which is Ex.P7. The said statement was registered as FIR by PW.11

at 9.00 p.m. In the statement given to the S.I of Police, the

deceased narrated regarding the harassment by the appellant. She

also stated that the appellant came home in a drunken condition

and they quarreled. When she went to her parents' house, the

appellant followed her and there he poured Kerosene on her and lit

her on fire. While she shouted for help, the appellant poured water

with a bucket and immediately the parents also arrived. Thereafter,

she was taken to the hospital. Ex.P13-161 Cr.P.C. statement of the

deceased was recorded by PW.16-S.I of Police.

6. Learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the statement

made by the deceased to Magistrate and S.I of Police, and other

witnesses corroborating the incident, recorded conviction.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant

would submit that the place of offence is in dispute. In one

statement, the deceased stated that the burning happened in their

house i.e., where she and the appellant were living. In the other

statement, deceased stated that when there was a quarrel, she

went to her parents' house which is beside their house and there

the appellant followed her and poured Kerosene on her. The said

discrepancy gives rise to a doubt regarding correctness of the

statement made by the deceased. In fact, defence witnesses were

examined who stated that the deceased was having suicidal

tendencies and she also attempted suicide earlier. It appears from

the background of the case that having burnt herself, for the

reason of tutoring by her parents, a false statement was made by

the deceased.

8. It is admitted that the appellant and the deceased were

staying together and the parents of the deceased were their

neighbours. There were constant fights in between the appellant

and the deceased. It was specifically stated by the parents of the

deceased and also the deceased in her statement that on the day of

the incident, the appellant came home drunk and there was a

quarrel. Pursuant to the said quarrel, the appellant poured

kerosene on her and lit fire to her. The discrepancy regarding the

place where the actual burning had taken place would be of no

consequence, in the present facts. The parents of the deceased are

her neighbours. Even according to the deceased and the parents,

both the appellant and the deceased quarreled, pursuant to which

the appellant poured Kerosene and lit her on fire. The discrepancy

pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel will not have any

bearing since the death by burning is not in dispute and further on

facts, it cannot be believed that the deceased had committed

suicide.

9. However, it is the statement of the deceased that the

appellant was in a drunken condition and pursuant to quarrel, he

poured Kerosene on her and immediately realizing what he had

done, the appellant poured water on her and extinguished the

flames.

10. The Honourable Supreme Court in Mohd.Rafiq Alias Kallu

v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1 held that;

"Held:

The question of whether in a given case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide of either description, punishable under Section 304 IPC, has engaged the attention of courts in India for over one-and-a-half century, since the enactment of the IPC. A welter of case law, on the aforesaid aspect exists, including perhaps several hundred rulings by the Supreme Court. The use of the term "likely" in several places in respect of

(2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706

culpable homicide, highlights the element of uncertainty that the act of the accused may or may not have killed the person, Section 300 IPC which defines "murder", however refrains from the use of the term likely, which reveals absence of ambiguity left on behalf of the accused. The accused is for sure that his act will definitely cause death. It is often difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes. Such difference lies in the degree of the act. There is a very wide variance of degree of intention and knowledge among both the crimes."

11. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya

and another 2, the Honourable Supreme Court held:

"21. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is "murder" or "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 of the Penal Code, is reached. This is

(1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 382

the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of "murder"

contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", punishable under the first part of Section 304, of the Penal Code."

12. Whether there was premeditation or intent to commit murder

can be gathered from the facts of a particular case. The quarrel

happened in between the spouses and the appellant was in a

drunken condition and set fire to his wife. Immediately, realizing

that he harmed her, he poured water on her and shifted her to

hospital.

13. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that there was

an intent on the part of the appellant to murder the deceased. If at

all the appellant had the intent to commit murder, he would not

have immediately extinguished flames by pouring water on her and

taken her to the hospital.

14. In view of the observations made by the Honourable Supreme