Telangana High Court
Bandi Sammaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 20 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.467 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused,
aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.10.2019, in C.C.No.111 of
2017, on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge,
Godavarikhani, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of
08/09.09.2014, the appellant poured kerosene on Suguna
(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and set her on fire,
which resulted in 70% of burns to the deceased. Later, the
deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital,
Mahadevpur, for the purpose of treatment.
4. The police gave a requisition to the learned
Magistrate/PW.20 for recording the dying declaration of the
deceased. PW.20 went to the hospital around 04.17 A.M. and
met the patient. The duty Doctor/PW.18 was also present and
she endorsed that "the patient is conscious, coherent, and in a
fit state of mind to give her statement". Preliminary questions
were asked by PW.20. The answer given by the deceased in the
statement made to the Magistrate when asked about cause of
her injuries is narrated as follows:
"Three years prior my husband died. Thereafter, I
fell in love with Sammaiah. He was married earlier,
however, he did not have children. He also loved me
and he used to come to our house in the night. We do
not have children together. I have children from my
first husband. Yesterday night at 09.00 P.M. he came
to our house, fought with me stating that I was
moving around with several other persons. I told him
that I was not moving with anyone. Thereafter, he
poured kerosene on me and set fire. My children
were sleeping at that time and to extinguish fire, I
rolled on the floor. After extinguishing fire, my brother
also namely Sammaiah, living near my house,
brought me to the hospital. Hearing my shouts
neighbors also came there. They informed the
incident to my brother. There is no marriage in
between me and Sammaiah. Sammaiah suspected
me and poured kerosene on me and fled from the
house. He is still in the village. He is the reason for
the burns that I received. This is all I have to say."
5. After the said statement of the deceased, the duty Doctor
again certified that the patient is "conscious, coherent, and in a
fit state of mind to give the statement". After the endorsement
of the Doctor, PW.20/Magistrate also endorsed that there was
no other person present when the recordings took place, except
the duty Doctor and herself.
6. The deceased was treated by PW.16, and according to
PW.16, the deceased received 70% burns, and IV fluids,
antibiotics, and dressing were given for her burn injuries. Her
general condition was poor. During the treatment, she died on
18.10.2014. According to PW.16, the deceased informed that
she sustained burns due to pouring of kerosene and being set
on fire by her lover Sammaiah.
7. The deceased died on 18.10.2014. Initially, the complaint
was filed on 09.09.2014 by PW.1, who is the mother of the
deceased. The crime was registered for the offence under
Section 307 of IPC, however, after the death of the deceased,
Section of law was altered to Section 302 of IPC.
8. The learned Sessions Judge found favor with the version
of the prosecution that the appellant had caused the death of
the deceased, which was premeditated and intentional. Mainly
placing reliance on the dying declaration, the evidence of the
minor son-PW.13, and also other circumstantial evidence about
the frequent quarrels between the appellant and the deceased,
the conviction was recorded.
9. The learned Legal-Aid Counsel for the appellant would
submit that a false case has been filed against the appellant.
The dying declaration cannot be relied upon since it is a false
statement. Since there are no eye-witnesses to the incident,
and in the absence of any eye-witnesses to corroborate the
version of the deceased, the conviction has to be set aside.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit
that there was no reason as to why the deceased would speak
against the appellant. The incident happened on the
intervening night of 08/09.09.2014, and immediately, the
complaint was lodged with the police by the mother of the
deceased. There is abundant evidence on record to substantiate
that it was the appellant who burnt the deceased, resulting in
her death.
11. The incident happened on 08/09.09.2014. It was
informed by the deceased that after the death of her husband,
she started living with the appellant. In fact, the appellant was
earlier married, and he used to visit her house frequently and
stay with her. The said live-in relationship between the
appellant and the deceased was spoken about by PWs.1, 2, 3,
4, and 5. All the witnesses have spoken about the illegal
intimacy between the deceased and the appellant, and that the
appellant was harassing her on the ground that she was having
affairs with other persons.
12. All the witnesses have stated that the deceased and the
appellant were in a live-in relationship and there were frequent
quarrels between them. According to the defence taken by the
appellant, the deceased committed suicide. However, as seen
from the averments in the complaint, and also the dying
declaration of the deceased, it is clearly indicated that it was
the appellant who poured kerosene and set her on fire. No
evidence is adduced by the appellant to disprove his presence,
since the witnesses have specifically spoken about his
presence, when the incident happened. Moreover, the same was
also stated by the deceased in the dying declaration. The
deceased died nearly 41 days after the incident. The death
happened while she was undergoing the treatment. It was on
account of the complications associated with the burns that the
deceased received on the date of the incident.
13. In the said circumstances, though the intention of the
appellant is clear to commit the murder, however, in view of the
deceased's death occurring 41 days after the date of incident on
account of the complications resulting from the burns, and not
a direct result of the burns received on the date of incident, we
deem it appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 307
of IPC while setting aside the conviction under Section 302 of
IPC.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, setting
aside the judgment dated 09.10.2019 in C.C.No.111 of 2017,
on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani.
However, the appellant is found guilty for the offence under
Section 307 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 20.03.2025
PNS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.467 of 2020
Dated 20.03.2025
PNS
