Telangana High Court
Shanker Rao Chinde, Hyderabad., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 30 January, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1028 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated
13.02.2017 in S.C.No.289 of 2016, passed by the IV
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at L.B.nagar, Ranga
Reddy, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence
under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and sentencing him to
undergo life imprisonment.
2. Heard Mr. S. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for appellant
and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State.
3. The appellant's wife was taken to the hospital with burn
injuries. The incident happened on 20.12.2015. On the said
day, the appellant went to his house and quarreled with his
deceased wife in a drunken condition. The reason given by
the deceased, in her dying declaration, is that the appellant
was fully drunk and for the reason of the curry, that was
cooked, not being tasty, appellant scolded her, poured
kerosene on her and lit her on fire. PW1 is the mother of the
deceased, she was present in the house when the incident
had taken place. According to PW1, appellant was habituated
to drinking and used to beat her daughter asking for money.
On the date of incident, in a drunken condition, he poured
kerosene on deceased after quarrelling with her and lit fire
with match box, which was in his pocket. While PW1 was
trying tried to rescue her daughter, she also received burn
injuries.
4. The deceased was taken to the hospital. In the hospital,
requisition was given to the Magistrate for recording dying
declaration. Dying declaration was recorded on 21.12.2015,
at 10.40 A.M. Duty doctor certified that the patient was
conscious, coherent and was in fit status of mind to give
statement. Magistrate went on to ask preliminary questions,
to satisfy himself regarding the status of mind of the
deceased. After satisfying himself, the Magistrate asked the
deceased as to what happened. The deceased gave her
statement, which is as follows:
"Yesterday night at 07.00 hours, my husband
Shankar came fully drunk. Everyday he comes drunk.
While eating food, on the pretext the mutton curry
cooked is not tasty, scolded, poured kerosene
contained in Kerosene tin on me and lit with match
stick. My mother and my daughter were also in house.
Neighbours came and poured water on me and they
brought me to hospital. My husband comes drunk
daily and fights with me and abuses me badly."
5. On the basis of the dying declaration and also
statement of PW1, learned Sessions Judge convicted the
appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
6. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that a case
of suicide was projected as a case of murder. The deceased
received 60% burns and in such a condition, giving statement
to the Magistrate is highly doubtful. PW2, who is the
daughter of deceased, has stated that PW1 was not present in
the house and appellant was not responsible for the burns
received by her mother. For the said reason, the conviction
has to be set aside.
7. PW1 is the mother of deceased, she lodged the
complaint/Ex.P1 stating the involvement of the appellant in
burning the deceased.
8. PW2 stated that appellant poured kerosene on her
mother and lit her on fire, for the reasons of not preparing
food properly. The version given by PW2, stating that her
grand-mother was not present, is of no help to the appellant.
In fact, PW2, daughter of the appellant had clearly stated that
appellant went home and he poured kerosene on deceased
and lit fire to her on the ground that chicken curry was not
prepared properly. Even in the dying declaration, deceased
stated that the husband was fully drunk and thereafter, on
the pretext of the food not being tasty, he lit her on fire, after
pouring kerosene.
9. From the evidence of PWs.1, 2, and dying declaration,
there leaves no room for doubt regarding the involvement of
the appellant in burning his wife, after dousing her with
kerosene and litting her on fire.
10. However, the incident happened when the appellant
was in a fully drunken state and there was a quarrel in
between the deceased and appellant. Under Exception-4 of
Section 300 of IPC, culpable homicide is not murder, if it is
committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight or in the
heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. Appellant had gone
home in a fully drunken condition, and during quarrel with
his wife, he poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire. It
cannot be said that there was any premeditation in the act of
the appellant. It was a sudden fight and in the heat of
passion, appellant had poured kerosene on her and lit her on
fire.
11. Since the incident happened during a heated argument
in between the spouses, this Court deems it appropriate to
convict the appellant for the offence under Section 304 - I of
IPC, sentencing him to undergo 8 years rigorous
imprisonment, while setting aside the conviction under
Section 302 of IPC.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly-allowed.
Since the appellant is on bail, the trial Court shall take steps
to cause his appearance and send him to jail to serve out the
remaining part of sentence, if any. The period of
imprisonment, if any, already undergone by the appellant,
shall be set-off.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 30.01.2025
plp
