SC.No.25 /2019 1 of 36
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SANGAREDDY
PRESENT : Smt G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy III Additional District & Sessions Judge FAC IV Additional District & Sessions Judge Sangareddy
Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2024.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 25 of 2019
(PRC No.41/2018 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SANGAREDDY)
1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana complainant through Circle-Inspector of Police, Sadashivpet (Rural) Circle, P.S. Munipally.
2Name and description of the Talari Guruvappa S/o Galaiah accusedAged 45 years, Occupation: Agriculture R/o Kallapally Beloor village Munipally Mandal.
3Offence with which charged: Under Section 302 IPC.
4Plea of the accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Not guilty 6Sentence or order:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302
IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under
Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 2 of 36
appeal time. Mos. 1 to 4 deposited vide CPR
No.136/15/2018 Dt: 14-08-2018, on the file of Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked non-valuable property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
7Prosecution conducted by :Sri N. Krishna Addl. Public Prosecutor 8Accused defended by:
M/s C. Narsing Raj, Advocate
This case came before me on 19.01.2024 for final hearing for disposal in the presence of Sri N. Krishna, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri M/s C. Narsing Raj, learned counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 05-06-2018 at 00::30 hours, the complainant/Mala Manthur Bagaiah lodged a report with police stating that he has got three daughters and that his younger daughter by name
Pentamma’s marriage was performed with the accused about 25 years ago and have been blessed with two sons. Since last five years, the
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 3 of 36
accused addicted to alcohol and used to come home in an inebriated condition and used to beat Pentamma. Panchayaths were convened, but the accused did not change his attitude and continued his harassment. Unable to bear the tortures, Pentamma left the accused two years ago and started residing with the complainant’s house along with her two sons and made a living by doing coolie work. The accused used to force the deceased Pentamma to rejoin his company and threatened her that he would kill her if she fails to join him. While the things stood thus, on 4-5-2018 at 15: 00 hours, Pentamma went to graze goats on leading road old village, soon after ½ hours, while the complainant sat in front of his house meanwhile Pentamma came to
Yallamma Gudi situated at Golla Basanthi agriculture land few yards away from complainant’s house with trapping fire flames and by screaming loudly she fell down on the ground. Upon her scream, the complainant and others reached the spot and when enquired she revealed that the deceased approached her and picked up quarrel with her as to why she is not joining his company and in a fit of rage he poured petrol on her and set ablaze. Immediately, Pentamma was
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 4 of 36
shifted to Govt., Hospital and later while shifting to Gandhi hospital for better treatment, on the way, she breathed her last.
2. Basing on the said report of Pw1, Lw20, Sub-Inspector of Police,
P.S Munipally, registered a case in Crime No.52/2018, for the offence punishable under Section 302 by issuing First Information Report (Ex.P21). During the course of investigation, Pw19 examined Pw1 and visited scene of offence and by securing the presence of mediators, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drawn rough sketch and also held seizure panchanama. Later, he conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of deceased and subjected the body for autopsy. On the same day, PW19 Kallapally Beloor village examined and recorded thestatementsofotherwitnesses.On 08-06-2018, Pw19 arrested the accused and on interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence and in the presence of mediators recorded the confessional statement of the accused. After completion of investigation, Pw19 filed charge sheet against the accused, for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court,
Sangareddy, took cognizance of the offence under Section 302 IPC
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 5 of 36
against the accused vide PRC No.41 of 2018, and after compliance of
Sec. 209 (a) Cr.P.C., as the offence is exclusively triable by court of
sessions, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Principal District and
Sessions Court, Sangareddy and the same is taken on file as
S.C.No.25 of 2019 and made over to this court.
4.After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the accused, charge was framed under Section 302 IPC, read over and explained to accused in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Then, the schedule for commencement of trial has been issued, witnesses PWs 1 to 19 were examined and Exs., P1 to P24, besides
Mos., 1 to 4 were marked, as indicated in the appendix of evidence.
6. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.
7. Heard arguments of both sides.
8. Now the point for determination is:
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 6 of 36
“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for
the offence under Section 302 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?”
9. POINT:- The case of the prosecution is that on 4-5-2018 at 15:00 hours, when the deceased Pentamma went to graze goats on leading road old village, soon after ½ hours, while the complainant was sitting in front of his house, he noticed Pentamma coming shouting with flames, towards Yellamma Gudi situated at Golla Basanthi agriculture land and fell down, immediately the complainant along with other reached there and found her in burnt condition and when asked as to how she got burnt, the deceased Pentamma narrated that while she was grazing goats near Manne Veeraiah agriculture land, the accused approached her and picked up quarrel saying as to why she is not joining his company and in a fit of rage he poured petrol on her and set ablaze. Thus, the accused has committed an offence under Section 302 IPC.
10. To prove the said case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of
PWs 1 to 19, among which PW1 is the complainant/father of the deceased, Pw4 is the elder son of deceased, Pws.,2 to 5 and Pws., 7 to 10 & 16 are the circumstantial witnesses, Pw6 is the photographer,
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 7 of 36
Pws.,11 & 12 are the mediators for scene of offence, inquest and seziure panchanamas, Pws.,13 is the mediator for inquest over the dead body of deceased, Pw14 is the mediator for confession, Pw15 is the younger son of the deceased, Pw17 is the doctor, Pw18 is the Ld.
Principal Judicial Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the
deceased and Pw19 is the investigating officer.
11. Pw1, deposed that the marriage of his daughter Pentamma was performed with the accused about 30 years back and were blessed with two children. The accused used to come house in a drunken state and harassed and beat the deceased Pentamma, as such she came to his house along with her two sons and residing with him. Several panchayaths were held in the village regarding disputes between the accused and the deceased. Further deposed that about 4 years back, the deceased went to Manne Veeraiah fields for grazing goats at about 3.00 pm and after some time the deceased came towards the village by running with fire flames. He was present at his house and observed her with flames at some distance, then he along with PW2 went near the deceased and on enquiry she informed that the accused poured petrol on her and set-ablaze. Immediately the deceased was shifted to
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 8 of 36
Sangareddy Govt. hospital where the doctors referred the deceased to
Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad and while shifting to Gandhi hospital,
Secunderabad, the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on the way and later brought the dead body to Sadashivpet hospital.
Thereafter, he lodged report Ex.P1 report with the police.
12. During the cross-examination of Pw1, he deposed that his house is adjacent to the house of the accused and that he knew the accused since his childhood. He admitted the fact that after marriage of the deceased with the accused they started residing separately. The accused is having agriculture land. He denied the say that the accused set up separate family at the advice of his deceased daughter. The accused stayed in Hyderabad for a period of 5 years and that at the time of alleged incident, the younger son of the accused was studying in Munipally School by staying in hostel and the elder son was staying at Hyderabad in the relatives house of the accused. It is admitted that the accused provided education to his two sons but denied the say that at the time of staying at Hyderabad by the accused, he used to send money to the deceased for maintenance of house and that the
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 9 of 36
deceased used to stay with her mother-in-law when the accused residing at Hyderabad.
13. He further deposed that 10 years prior to the incident, the accused came to the village and stayed in his house along with wife and children by doing coolie works. Two years prior to the incident, the deceased was residing in his house. He admitted that he did not make any efforts to send the deceased to the house of the accused. He stated that one can reach the lands of Veeraiah within 4 or 5 minutes from his house but denied the say that the land of veeraiah will not be visible from his house. He admitted that he has not mentioned names of elders before whom panchayaths were held in Ex.P1 and also not mentioned in Ex.P1 and under section 161 Cr.P.C the names of elders and place of panchayaths and how many months prior to the incident, said panchayaths were held. The deceased fell down near Yellamma temple situated near Golla Basanthi fields, with flames. No agriculture operation are going on in the fields of Veeraiah at the time of incident and on hearing hue and cries of his deceased daughter, he identified his daughter by going near to her. Nobody was present at Yellamma
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 10 of 36
Temple and Golla Basanthi fields, when the deceased came there with flames.
14. It was further deposed by Pw1 that he stayed at Yellamma Temple for half an hour and denied the say that he did not state before police and mentioned in Ex.P1 regarding actual words spoken by the deceased with him regarding incident. The inmates of 108 vehicle enquired with
Pw1 what happened to the deceased and recorded the same and that he denied the say that he informed the 108 ambulance employees that his deceased daughter sustained burn injuries accidentally. The police enquired with the deceased regarding the incident and that he has not reported the matter to the police station opposite to the Govt. hospital,
Sangareddy nor informed about the incident. He denied the say that his deceased daughter informed to the doctors at Sangareddy Govt.
hospital that she sustained burn injuries accidentally. Immediately, his daughter was shifted to Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad and while shifting she died. Later lodged Ex.P1 with police at Sadashivpet hospital.
15. He denied the say that he did not mention in Ex.P1 that Pw2 came along with him to the Yellamma Temple to see his daughter and that
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 11 of 36
the the names of LWs2 and 3 in Ex.P1 were not mentioned that they came to Yellamma Temple along with him . He further denied that as he is not having male children, he has intended to keep his deceased daughter in his house.
16. Pw2 deposed that Pw1 is her senior paternal uncle and the deceased
Pentamma is her cousin and that two years prior to the incident the deceased Pentamma came to the house of PW1, as the accused used to harass and beat her and that two or three panchayaths were held to resolve dispute between the accused and deceased. On 04-06-2018 at about 3.00 pm, the deceased Pentamma went to fields of Manne
Veeraiah to graze her goats. Half an hour thereafter, the deceased came to Yellamma Temple with burn injuries and that she was present at her house at the time of incident. She heard cries of deceased from her house and on hearing the same, herself and PW1 rushed there and covered the body with a blanket and on enquiry with the deceased she informed them that accused poured petrol on her and set ablaze. She deposed that at Govt. hospital, Sangareddy the doctors examined the deceased and called Magistrate to record her statement. The
Magistrate came to the hospital and recorded statement of deceased
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 12 of 36
and while shifting her to Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad she died.
Later shifted her to the Sadashivpet Govt. hospital. On the same day
PW1 went to the police station and lodged report.
17. In cross-examination, Pw2 deposed that her marriage took place about 12 years back and since then she is residing at her in-laws house at
Medapally village. Two days prior to the incident, she came to her parents house at Kallapally Belur village along with her husband. On the date of alleged incident, Pw2 along with her parents and her husband were present in the house and that the house of Pw1 is situated on the left side of her parents house. She neither stated before police regarding panchayaths held to resolve disputes between the accused and deceased nor attended any of the panchayaths. She admitted that the deceased never complained to her against the accused about his harassment. She stated that she did not advise the deceased to go to her husband house.
18. At the time of alleged incident, she was sitting under a tree in front of her parents house along with her parents and her husband. The said
Yellamma temple is situated on North-East side of her parents house at a distance of 20 yards. The land of Manne Veeraiah situated far away
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 13 of 36
from her parents house. On hearing cries of the deceased Pentamma, she along with her parents and husband rushed to the Yellamma
Temple and noticed the deceased was fallen on the ground with burns injuries. She went to the hospital in an ambulance along with deceased and that the statement of deceased was recorded by employees of ambulance. The doctors at Govt. hospital, Sangareddy recorded the statement of the deceased. They have not lodged any report to the
Sangareddy Town Police station situated opposite to Govt. hospital and that no other relatives of deceased came to govt. hospital, Sangareddy except them. She admitted that the deceased was going on talking while shifting her to the hospital due to pain of burn injuries. She denied the say that she did not stated before police the actual words stated to her by the deceased and also denied that the deceased never informed her or any other person that the accused poured petrol on her and set ablaze. She denied the say that the deceased sustained burn injures accidentally and that accused never poured petrol on her nor set ablaze and that she stated the same to employees of ambulance and doctors in the hospital. She denied the say that on coming to know that the doctors called Magistrate to record her statement, herself, Pw1 and
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 14 of 36
other relatives tutored and influenced the mind of the deceased to speak against the accused. She admitted that Pw1 asked her to give statement to the police.
19. Pw3 deposed that on 04-06-2018 at about 3.30 pm she was returning to her house in the auto of Lw6/Mohan from her parents house and when they reached the village, she heard that the deceased sustained burn injuries. Then she went to Yellamma Temple and found the deceased Pentamma with burn injuries all over body. She along with
PW1, PW2 and other relatives questioned the deceased as to how she sustained burn injuries. Then the deceased informed them that the accused poured petrol on her and set ablaze. Pw1 and PW2 took deceased in the auto LW6 to the hospital. Thereafter, she went to her house.
20. In cross-examination, Pw3 deposed that she does not know why deceased Pentamma was staying in the house of PW1 and that the deceased did not complained her against the accused. She admitted that the deceased was under depression due to her family disputes.
She stated that several villagers gathered at Temple by the time she
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 15 of 36
reached and that many people were present, when deceased informed about cause of her injuries.
21. Pw4 is the elder son of deceased Petamma. He deposed that about 4 years back, at about 5 pm his friends informed him over phone that his mother sustained burn injuries and that he was staying in Hyderabad at the time of incident. Then he immediately rushed to the Sangareddy govt hospital and found his mother with burn injuries. He does not know the reasons of her burn injuries. Pw4 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Though the Ld. Public Prosecutor examined this witness at length, nothing worth elicited from his evidence. During the cross-examination by the counsel for accused,
Pw4 stated that on his enquiry with his deceased mother in Govt hospital, Sangareddy, she revealed that she accidentally suffered burnt injuries and he also admitted the fact that his mother was under depression prior to the incident.
22. Pw5 deposed that about 4 years back at about 3.30 pm, while he was present at Chelapally village, Pw1 called him to bring the auto to his village and when he went to Yellamma temple of Kallapally Belur village he found one lady covered with a blanket and she was alive,
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 16 of 36
PW1, PW2 and another lady were present along with said patient. He took the said lady in his auto and proceeded towards Sadashivpet
Govt. hospital and when reached Peddalody village, 108 ambulance came there and the PWs 1 and 2 shifted the said women patient in the said ambulance. Subsequently he came to know that she died and that he does not the reasons for her death. Pw5 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Though the Ld. Public Prosecutor examined this witness at length, nothing worth elicited from his evidence. During the cross-examination by the counsel for accused,
Pw5 stated that he has prior ac quittance with the PW1 and that PW1 used to travel in his auto now and then. He admitted that he did not state before the police the name of person who informed him that the accused quarreled with deceased and poured petrol and set ablaze.
23. Pw6 is the photographer and he deposed that about 4 years back police Munipally called him at about 8.30 am to Sadashivpet Govt.
hospital to take photograph. Accordingly he went to Sadashivpet Govt.
hospital and took photographs of deceased Pentamma who sustained burn injuries in Govt. hospital near mortuary. In cross-examination,
PW6 deposed that Ex.P2 does not contained his photo studio seal or
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 17 of 36
signature and that there is no identity marks that I have taken Ex.P2 photos. He further admitted that he has not stated in his statement that he has handed over CD of photos to the police along with photos.
24. PW7 deposed that about 3 and half years back he went to Duppa
Sangaiah to plough the land with his tractor at about 12.00 or 12.30 noon hours and when he returned his house in the evening hours, he came to know through his villagers that the deceased sustained burn injuries. He does not know how the deceased sustained burn injuries and who is responsible for the injuries. Pw7 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Though the Ld. Public Prosecutor examined this witness at length, nothing worth elicited from his evidence.
25. Pw8 deposed that on the date of incident, he went to Hasnabad village for mason work and returned in the evening hours and came to know that the deceased Pentamma died due to burn injuries. Pw8 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Though the Ld.
Public Prosecutor examined this witness at length, nothing worth elicited from his evidence.
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 18 of 36
26. Pw9 deposed that about 4 years back at the time of incident, he was at his fields and when returned from his land at about 5.00 pm he came to know that the deceased sustained burn injuries and died. He does not know how the deceased sustained burn injuries. Pw9 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Though the Ld. Public
Prosecutor examined this witness at length, nothing worth elicited from his evidence.
27. Pw10 deposed that about 3 years back on the date of incident, he went to Sadashivpet in the morning and returned in the evening and that he does not know the facts of the case. Pw10 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Though the Ld. Public Prosecutor examined this witness at length, nothing worth elicited from his evidence.
28. Pws.,11 & 12 deposed that about 4 years back, police obtained their signatures on scene of offence and seizure panchanama under Ex.P7, on rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P8 and on inquest panchanama under Ex.P9. Pws.,11 & 12 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Though the Ld. Public Prosecutor
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 19 of 36
examined these witnesses at length, nothing worth elicited from his evidence.
29. Pw13 deposed that about 3 years back, he went to Sadashivpet Govt.
hospital for medical check up, then Pw 11 asked him to sign on the inquest panchanama and accordingly he signed on inquest panchanama under Ex.P13. Pw13 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Though the Ld. Public Prosecutor examined these witnesses at length, nothing worth elicited from his evidence.
30. Pw14 deposed that police called him to Munipally police station at
Budhera and asked to enquire the accused, upon his enquiry accused stated that due to dispute with his wife, he set fire to his wife at the field. His signature on panchanama was marked as Ex.P14 signature.
In his cross-examination Pw14 stated that he has already given his evidence in two other cases. He denied that by the time he went to the
Police station the panchanama was already prepared. There are no written instructions for his going to police station. He was also in charge of Kallapally Belur at that time. He was not in the village when the case incident took place and was informed about the incident at Kallapally
Belur at police station. He enquired the accused outside the police
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 20 of 36
station and that police officials were present at that time and at some distance, people were there at police station.
31. Pw15 deposed that the accused is his father and at the time of incident, he was studying 10th class and staying in the hostel. On receiving information, he went to Government hospital, Sangareddy and found the body of his mother in burnt condition, there after the dead body was sent to Gandhi hospital. He does not know how the burnt injuries were received by his mother. Pw15 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Though the Ld. Public Prosecutor examined this witnesses at length, nothing worth elicited from his evidence.
32. Pw16 deposed that he does not know about the facts of the case.
Pw16 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.
Though the Ld. Public Prosecutor examined this witness at length, nothing worth elicited from his evidence.
33. Pw17 is the doctor, deposed that on 05-06-2018 he received requisition from police Munnipalli to conduct PME on the dead body of the deceased Talari Pentamma accordingly he conducted PME of the deceased under Ex.P17 and noted the injuries of the deceased at column No. 9 of the PM examination, and opined that the cause of the
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 21 of 36
death of the deceased is due to born injuries of 80%. In his cross- examination, Pw17 deposed that there were no external injuries over the dead body of the deceased and that the throat of the deceased was also found with burn injuries.
34. Pw18 deposed that on receipt of requisition from Govt. Hospital,
Sangareddy under Ex.P19, he recorded dying declaration of the injured
Talari Pentamma under Ex.P20 and thereafter concluded the proceedings. In his cross-examination, Pw18 stated that the patient throat was at 100% burns and that he does not remember that the declarant's mouth and throat was also burnt. He admitted that the declarant Pentamma has not deposed the specific name as to who has poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. He further admitted that there is a doctor certification before commencement of recording dying declaration that the patient was conscious, coherent and emotionally stable while recording entire dying declaration.
35. Pw19 is the investigating officer who deposed that on receiving complaint, he registered a case in crime no. 52 of 2018 U/s 302 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P21. On 05-06-2018, he examined and recorded the statement of Pw1, visited scene of offence situated at
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 22 of 36
Kallapally Beloor village outskirts on road leading to Kalapally Beloor old village and securing the presence two panchas i.e. PW11 and
PW12, conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P22 and also drawn rough sketch under Ex.P23 and seized burnt clothes, ash heap, small yellow colour cloth piece, small cool drink bottle, one pair ladies cheppal and one match box containing with sticks under the cover of seizure panchanama. Later conducted inquest panchanama under Ex.P24 and subjected the dead body for autopsy. On the same day examined PW5, PW7 to PW10 and PW16 and recorded their statements. On 08-06-2018, apprehended the accused and on interrogation he admitted his guilt of committing offence in the presence of panch witnesses PW14 and LW17 and accordingly recorded the confession statement of accused and effected his arrest.
36. In his cross-examination, Pw19 admitted that he has not examined the neighbors of scene of offence. He also admitted that he has not obtained the signature of PW1 in column No. 14 of Ex. P21 and that he does not know who has scribed Ex.P1. He admitted that in Ex.P1 it was mentioned that PW1 and some others went to scene of offence but the names of the persons who visited scene of offence along with PW1
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 23 of 36
was not mentioned. He admitted that in Ex.P1 and 161 statement of
PW1 there is no mention of the name of particular person who enquired with deceased. He had not seen the record of 108 ambulance about the details of person who shifted the deceased to the hospital. He has not examined the persons went in ambulance along with deceased.
And that he has not verified the case sheet. He admitted that Pws.,2 & 3 had not stated in their statement that they went to scene of offence along with PW1. He admitted that that in 161 statements of Pws, 1 to 3 there is no mention of the name of particular person on whose enquiry the deceased narrated the incident.
37.The Ld., Public prosecutor submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses corroborated and proved the case and he opined that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond doubt.
38.On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that admittedly this case is murder of a person and that as per prosecution witnesses’ the accused was not seen by them and prosecution witness could not bring any material against the accused person that he is involved in the commission of murder of the deceased Talari
Pentamma by setting her ablaze. He further argued that the
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 24 of 36
prosecution totally failed to bring home the charge u/s 302 IPC against the accused person and there is no direct evidence available against the accused and prosecution charges against the accused is totally baseless and not established at all.
39.This court taken into account the submission made by the Ld.defence counsel as well as Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor. This court also scrutinized the evidence on record, both prosecution and defence.
40.The accused person took plea of innocence and totally denied the prosecution charges and stated prosecution witnesses deposed false evidence. To arrive at the just decision of the case, this court analyze the evidence on record.
41.This is a case where there is no eye witness. The prosecution relies only on the dying declarations made by the deceased. First is the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to Pws., 1 to 3. Pw1 is the father of the deceased, Pw2 and PW3 are the relatives of the deceased and PW1. According to PW1., at the time of incident he was present at his house and noticed his daughter coming towards village in running with fire flames, only thereafter, PW1 along with Pw2 went to
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 25 of 36
deceased and found with burn injuries. According to PW2, she was present at her parents house and on hearing the cries of deceased she along with PW1 rushed to the spot and covered the deceased with a blanket. According to PW3, She came to know about the incident while she was returning to her house from her parents house in the auto of
Pw5, then she went to Yellamma Temple and found Pentamma with burn injuries all over the body. It is their evidence that when they enquired the deceased, she told them that it was the accused who poured kerosene and set fire. Thus, in the oral dying declaration, the deceased had said that injuries were caused by the accused.
42.In cross-examination of PW1,a suggestion was made to him that he stated to 108 ambulance employees that his daughter sustained burn injuries accidentally and that his deceased daughter informed to the doctors at Govt Hospital, Sangareddy that she sustained accidentally, but he repudiated this suggestion. Another suggestion was made to
PW1 that the accused was falsely implicated as the accused demanded PW1 to send the deceased to his house for leading conjugal life and that as PW1 is not having male children, his intention was to keep his deceased daughter at his house, to which he repudiated this
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 26 of 36
suggestion too.
43.In cross-examination of PW2, it is admitted that the deceased never complained her against the accused and his harassment. PW3 in her cross-examination admitted that the deceased was under depression due to her family disputes and that the deceased never complained her against the ill treatment of the accused and further stated that the deceased was suffering from depression due to family disputes. The evidence of Pws., 1 to 3 is not reliable, as they are not the direct eye witnesses to substantiate the said fact. Their evidence is only based on the oral dying declaration of the deceased.
44. The second dying declaration was recorded by Pw18 in the presence of doctor who certified that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. Pw18 asked her certain questions which are set out in detail and he took down the answers and his evidence is that the deceased understood the questions and replied to them. He made a record of the questions and answers and her thumb impression was taken. In cross-examination, PW18 admitted that the deceased has sustained 100% burns and that deceased has not taken any specific name as to who poured kerosene on her and set fire.
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 27 of 36
45. The argument raised before the court was that it is a case of suicide owing to depression. To substantiate this reason, it is relevant to note the evidence of Pw4 who is the elder son of deceased, admitted in his cross-examination that his mother was suffering from depression prior to the incident and further stated that on his enquiry with his mother as to how she got burnt, she replied that accidentally she sustained burn injuries. This piece of evidence corroborates with the evidence of Pw3 wherein in her cross-examination stated that the deceased was under depression owing to her family disputes. There are cogent grounds which would lead to the conclusion that the deceased wanted to commit suicide and also the circumstances which would lead to such conclusion.
46. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. Mani Vs., State of
Tamil Nadu (2006) 0 Supreme (SC) 172 at para no.14 that “ the question as to whether a dying declaration is of impeccable character would depend upon several facts; physical and mental condition of the deceased is one of them. In this case, the circumstances which have been brought on records clearly point out that what might have been
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 28 of 36
stated in the dying declaration may not be correct. If the deceased had been nurturing a grudge against her husband for a long time, she while committing suicide herself may try to implicate him so as to make his life miserable. In the present case, where the appellant has been charged under Section 302 IPC, the presumption in terms of Section 13
A of the Evidence Act is not available. In absence of such a presumption, the conviction and sentence of the accused must be based on cogent and reliable evidence brought on record by the prosecution”.
47. It is always a difficult question to speculate why deceased accused a certain person of committing the crime, or why a witness deposes against a person with whom he has no ostensible cause of enmity or why the police in the discharge of its public duty should influence persons to make inaccurate statement, when courts come to the conclusion that the accusation or evidence does not appear to be true and that there are reasons to suppose that the police had influenced the testimony of witnesses. Anyway, the same difficulty occurs in the present case. But it is clear that the relations between the wife and the husband were strained to such an extent that, according to the
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 29 of 36
prosecution, the accused not only harassed the deceased to join his company, but also set fire to her clothes with the intention to cause her death. Such a conduct of the husband cannot be on account of ordinary domestic unpleasantness, but must be the result of a very acute feeling of desperation and a desire not to live any more with his wife. If such were the relations which one is inclined to infer from what the prosecution wants the court to believe, it should not be difficult to imagine that the wife’s motives in charging the husband falsely may be equally strong. She too must have been fed up with the misery of her life and might have committed suicide and put an end to her life, but when, as often happens, she was questioned, she accused her husband of setting fire to her clothes, not with a view to save herself from a conviction for attempting to commit suicide, but either on account of her feeling that her husband was responsible for all her troubles and that her desperate action was also due to the same cause or out of malice. Any way, a dying declaration is not be believed merely because no possible reason can be given for accusing the accused falsely. It, can only be believed if there are no grounds for doubting it at all.
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 30 of 36
48. Apart from the above considerations indicating that implicit reliance cannot be placed on the dying declaration, there are other circumstances which add to the feeling of uncertainty about the truth of the accusation made in the dying declaration. The panchanama of scene of offence and rough sketch drawn, does not show that the agriculture fields of Manne Veeraiah where the deceased was set ablaze by the accused, had any oil sprinkled over the land or that it got burnt. But in contra, it shows that the road leading towards Kallapally
Belur adjoining the land of Edgi Kista Goud, Mos., 1 to 4 were recovered and also the burnt land. Absence of burnt land in the fields of Manne Veeraiah is not consistent with the statement of deceased that she was grazing sheep in the fields of Manne Veeraiah when the incident happened.
49. It is really remarkable that in this case, the circumstantial witnesses i.e., Pws.,4 elder son of deceased , Pw15 is the younger son of the deceased and Pws., 5, 7 to 13 & 16 who belongs to the village of deceased has turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. Though these witnesses were cross examined at length, no useful material could be elicited to throw light on the prosecution case.
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 31 of 36
Even these witnesses I.e, Pws., 7 to 10 & 16 resiled from their earlier
Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements which are marked as Exs., P3 to P6 &
Ex.P16 respectively. There is no evidence at all from an outside source.
50.The evidence of PW6 is only to the extent of taking the photos of the deceased, and his evidence is not much useful to the case of prosecution.
51.Pw14 being the mediator for recording the confession panchanama and seizure panchanama, his evidence discloses that the accused admitted his guilt in his presence and that he signed on confession panchanama. Admittedly, this witness is a public servant and moreover he has given evidence in two more cases. Even though at Kallapally
Belur police station there are so many persons and other persons were available, but why this particular person has been chosen as witness is also not forthcoming. If the prosecution wants to say that the accused persons confessed before the police about his involvement in the incident, but the investigation officer did not send the accused to
magistrate for recording their confessional statement. So, the
prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence.
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 32 of 36
52. Leaving these witnesses apart, there remains the evidence of Pw17, medical officer, PW18 Judicial Magistrate and Pw.19, investigating officer. The evidence of Pw17 is only to an extent of conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and ascertain the nature of injuries caused, which lead to the death of the deceased.
Thus, the medical opinion by itself, however, does not prove or disprove the prosecution case, it is merely of advisory character.
53. Pw19 deposed the chronological order of events occurred during the course of investigation. His evidence is procedural in nature and being the official police witness, his evidence cannot be independently believed when there is no corroborative evidence. However, the evidence of Pw19 speaks that the accused person had confessed his guilt in his presence. Except this particular incriminating statement against accused, there is absolutely no other evidence as against the accused to get him to the home of guilt of offence of 302 IPC. Even the said portion of confession is not admissible as given under
Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. . The investigation seemed to have revealed nothing whatever. There is nothing in the case to lend assurance to any circumstances. As such, the evidence
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 33 of 36
available on record is not sufficient to hold the accused person guilty for the offence U/Sec.302 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt and thus he is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.
54.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. Mos. 1 to 4 deposited vide CPR No.136/15/2018
Dt: 10-12-2021, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The
unmarked non-valuable property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of January, 2024.
III Addl. District & Sessions Judge FAC IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge Sangareddy
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
Pw1 Balaiah- NIL -
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 34 of 36
Pw2 K. Manjula
Pw3 M. Anthamma
Pw4 Talari Madhu
Pw5 P. Mohan
Pw6 B. Raju
Pw7 K. Veeresham Goud
Pw8 M. Veeraiah
Pw9 D. Sangaiah
Pw10 Mahboob Sab
Pw11 Vittal Reddy
Pw12 J. Subhan Reddy
Pw13 M. Pushpamma
Pw14 B. Sham
Pw15 T. Manohar
Pw16 S. Durgaiah
Pw17 Dr. D. Raghuveer
Pw18 D. Vijaysarathi Raju
Pw19 R. Ravi
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 35 of 36
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:
Ex.P1 Report - NIL -
Ex.P2 Photographs (10)
Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw7.
Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw8.
Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw9.
Ex.P6 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw10.
Ex.P7 Scene of offence and seizure panchanama
Ex.P8 Rough sketch
Ex.P9 Signature of Pw11 on inquest panchanama
Ex.P10 Signature of Pw12 on scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P11 Signature of Pw12 on Rough sketch.
Ex.P12 Signature of Pw12 on Inquest report.
Ex.P13 Signature of Pw13 on Inquest panchanama.
Ex.P14 Signature of Pw14 on confession panchanama.
Ex.P15 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw15.
Ex.P16 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw16.
Ex.P17 Postmortem Examination Report.
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ
SC.No.25 /2019 36 of 36
Ex.P18 Requisition received by Pw17 from Station House Officer, Munipally.
Ex.P19 Requisition received by Pw17 from Doctor.
Ex.P20 Dying declaration.
Ex.P21 First Information Report.
Ex.P22 Scene of offence panchanama.
Ex.P23 Rough Sketch.
Ex.P24 Inquest panchanama.
Material objects marked:
MO1 One pair of Chappal.
MO2 One plastic bottle.
MO3 Burnt Yellow Colour cloth piece.
MO4 Match box with match sticks.
III Addl. District & Sessions Judge FAC IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge Sangareddy
III ADJ
FAC IV ADJ