Telangana High Court
Mohd. Amer vs The State Of Telangana on 18 March, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.735 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the
judgment dated 14.12.2017, in S.C.No.449 of 2012, on the file
of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad. The
appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun
Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State.
3. The petitioner herein is arrayed as A-3 in the Court below.
The deceased, namely Mariyam Khanam, was the wife of Mohd.
Abbas (A-1). According to the case of the prosecution, while the
deceased was preparing tea in the kitchen, the appellant
poured kerosene on her from behind, and mother-in-law set her
on fire. The deceased shouted for help, and immediately, other
family members came into the room, and then she was taken to
the hospital for treatment.
4. At 9:15 a.m., on 20.12.2008, P.W.13/Sub-Inspector of
Police recorded the statement of the deceased. In her
statement, the deceased stated that "today on 20.12.2008 at
about 01:30 a.m., I was in kitchen room to prepare tea on gas
stove there was kerosene in a plastic mug kept on the kitchen
platform. In the meantime, I saw my younger brother-in-law
namely Mohd.Amer poured kerosene on me from my back side
and my mother-in-law lit the match stick and put it on me and
set ablaze". Thereafter, a requisition was given to the
jurisdictional Magistrate/P.W.11, and P.W.11 went to the
hospital around 11:15 a.m., i.e., nearly two hours after the
statement of the deceased was recorded by P.W.13. In the
statement made to the learned Magistrate, the deceased stated
that "Yesterday night relatives came. my husband sister's
relatives came and went away night 12:30 hours. Night at 1:00
a.m. after having dinner, my mother-in-law asked me to prepare
tea. Thereafter, she asked me to prepare coffee. When I was
preparing coffee, at that time my brother-in-law Amer came
behind me and poured kerosene on me, then I turned back,
smelling my mother-in-law lighted the match stick and thrown
upon me and it caught fire and burn my body".
5. The deceased, while undergoing treatment, died on
30.12.2008. Though the crime was registered for the offence
under Section 307 r/w. 34 of IPC, the Section of law was
altered to Section 304-B of IPC, alternatively to Section 302
r/w.34 of IPC.
6. Learned Sessions Judge mainly placed reliance on the
statements made by the deceased to both P.W.11 and P.W.13.
Further, as a form of corroboration, the relatives of the
deceased, P.Ws.1 to 6, spoke about the incident, and the
deceased also narrated the incident to them.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that there are any amount of discrepancies in the statements
that were made by the relatives of the deceased vis-a-vis the
dying declaration. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, after the
appellant poured kerosene on the deceased, she came out and
started arguing with A-4, and that is when A-4 set her on fire.
However, it was also stated that it was A-2 who set the
deceased on fire. The said information given by P.Ws.1 and 2
was provided to them by the deceased. When the statements of
P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased are considered, there is any
amount of contradiction, and for the reason of the
contradiction, the conviction cannot be sustained.
8. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P. 1,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court found a discrepancy in the
narration made by the deceased in the two dying declarations.
In the first instance, the deceased stated that she caught fire
while sweeping, and in the second dying declaration, she stated
that the incident happened while she was preparing coffee. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court found a noticeable discrepancy looming
large between the two statements. The said judgment is not
applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case,
both statements made by the deceased are consistent and also
the witnesses spoke about the appellant pouring kerosene on
the deceased from behind, and A-4 setting the deceased on fire.
Only for the reason that P.Ws.1 and 2, in their cross-
examinations, stated that the deceased informed them that she
was set on fire while arguing with A-4, will not amount to a
contradiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with
the contradictions between the two statements made by the
deceased and not between the statement of the deceased and
other witnesses. The argument of the counsel, claiming to be in
line with the said judgment, is incorrect. As such, minor
contradictions in the statements of the witnesses are bound to
(1999) 7 SCC 69
occur. Merely because one of the witnesses spoke about a
statement that contradicts the statement of the deceased in the
dying declaration cannot be the basis to disbelieve the version
given by the deceased in her dying declaration.
9. The counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Praveen Kumar 2. In
the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while finding favour
with the findings of the Hon'ble High Court, found that in the
two dying declarations that were made, the subsequent version
given by the deceased was totally contradictory to the first
dying declaration. In the first statement, there were no
allegations against the mother-in-law, father-in-law, and the
sister-in-law but only against the husband. In the second dying
declaration, it was stated that the mother-in-law sprinkled
kerosene on her and her husband set her on fire. On the basis
of the said discrepancies between the two statements of the
deceased, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal
filed by the State.
(2005) 9 SCC 769
10. The other judgment relied on by the learned counsel is the
judgment of the erstwhile Hon'ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Mamidi Venkanna vs. State of A.P. 3
11. In all three judgments cited by the learned counsel, the
discrepancies were found in the two statements made by the
deceased herself. As already discussed, the said findings of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgments has no
application to the present facts of the case, when it is urged
that one of the witnesses contradicted the version given by the
deceased in the dying declaration.
12. The incident happened when the deceased was preparing
tea/coffee in the kitchen. The appellant went from behind and
poured kerosene on the deceased. It is not stated in either of
the dying declarations, i.e., under Ex.P.9, the statement made
to the Inspector and Ex.P.7, the statement made to the
Magistrate, regarding the presence of the appellant when A-
4/mother-in-law set the deceased on fire. The knowledge and
intent were evident from the fact that the appellant poured
kerosene on her. In either of the two statements, it is not
mentioned that the appellant asked A-4 to set the deceased on
fire or that A-4 asked A-3 to pour kerosene on her so that she
2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 687(AP)
could set her on fire. Though the case involves criminal
conspiracy, and there may be no direct evidence of conspiracy,
an inference can be drawn from the facts of the case.
13. A-1, A-2, and A-4 died during the pendency of the trial.
Only A-5 and A-3 were tried. Learned Sessions Judge found
that A-5 was not complicit in the conspiracy to commit murder.
Once the conspiracy was not believed, the act of A-3 pouring
kerosene on the deceased cannot form basis to convict the
appellant under Section 302 of IPC. However, in the present
peculiar facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to convict the
appellant under Section 307 of IPC for attempting to murder
the deceased. Accordingly, the appellant is convicted under
Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years of
imprisonment.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 18.03.2025
dv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.735 OF 2018
Dt. 18.03.2025
dv
