S.C.No.423 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE :: ANANTAPURAMU AT GOOTY
Present: Sri K. Venkata Ramana Reddy, B. Sc., B.L., VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty MONDAY THE 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2017
SESSIONS CASE No.423/2016
(On committal by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal in P.R.C.No.12/2016)
Name of the complainant:Inspector of Police, Guntakal Urban Circle
Cr.No.& Name of the P.S. : Cr.No.30/2016 of Guntakal I Town P.S.
Name and description of the :1. Shaik Usman @ Gulam Mahammad Usman, aged accused 29 years, S/o. Shaik Gulam Noor Mahammad @ Lakba Noor, C/o. D.No.8/168, Guntahabavi Street, Guntakal Town now residing at D.No.20/212-B-11, Ganga Nagar, Guntakal Town (A.1)
2. P. Latha @ Puspalatha @ Guljar Begum, aged 26 years, W/o. Shaik Usman @ Gulam Mahammad Usman, D.No.20/212-B-11, Ganga Nagar, Guntakal Town (A.2)
Offence: Charge u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC was framed against accused.
Plea of the accused :Accused pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Judge :Accused is found not guilty.
Sentence or order:In the result A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty of the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted of said charge u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by accused and their sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months. The case property produced i.e., M.O.1 party burnt sari, M.O.2 blouse, M.O.3 petty coat and M.O.4 empty bottle are ordered to be destroyed subject to appeal provisions.
The case coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.V. Mahesh Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the state and Sri G. Venkata Reddy, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides, this court delivered the following: //JUDGMENT//
1.Inspector of Police, Guntakal Urban Circle filed charge sheet in the Court of
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal against accused u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC in
Cr.No.30/2016 of Guntakal I Town P.S. alleging as,
Late Thatakula Boya Narayanamma (hereinafter referred to as deceased) is the mother of A.2 P. Latha @ Puspalatha @ Guljar Begum. The deceased performed marriage of A.2 with a person of Mopidi Village and sent A.2 to her matrimonial home.
While A.2 was living along with her husband A.1 eloped with A.2 and married her. Ever since A.1 and A.2 lived at the house of deceased and they are blessed with two sons and 1/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016 one daughter. A.1 again married another woman belonging to Muslim community and kept her in a separate house. A.1 addicted to consume alcohol. A.1 used to visit A.2 at the house of deceased and picked up quarrel with A.2 and beat her indiscriminately in intoxication stae for which the deceased objected and asked A.1 and A.2 to go away form her house. But A.1 and A.2 refused to go out of the house and picked up quarrel with her.
On account of the same ill feelings cropped up between deceased and A.1 and A.2. On 11.03.2016 at about 2.00 pm A.1 and A.2 quarrelled with deceased for which the deceased again demanded them to vacate her house. A.1 and A.2 decided to eliminate the deceased.
With such intention at about 4.00 pm A.1 poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and
A.2 supplied match box and A.1 lit fire with that match box. Due to flames surrounded on the body of deceased she raised cries. On hearing the same P.W.1-Boya Nagarjuna, P.W.2-
Boya Neelavathi, P.W.3-K. Kalpana, P.W.4-C. Suseelamma, P.W.5-C. Eeramma, P.W.6-B.
Lakshmi put off the flames and removed burnt cloths and made the deceased to wear nighty. Immediately P.Ws.1 and 2 shifted the deceased to Government General Hospital,
Guntakal for treatment P.W.14-K. Vasudeva Rao, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal went there and recorded statement of deceased. Later the deceased was shifted to
Government Hospital, Anantapuramu for better treatment but she succumbed to burnt injuries on 15.03.2016 at 2.45 am. On 11.03.2016 at 7.45 pm P.W.15-P. Ramachandra
Reddy, ASI of Police, Guntakal I Town P.S. received MLC intimation from Government
Hospital, Guntakal, went there and recorded the statement of deceased and on the strength of said statement he registered a case in Cr.No.30/2016 u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC and submitted
FIR copies to all concerned officers and took up investigation. During the course of investigation said ASI of Police examined the deceased and her son and daughter-in-law, further visited the scene of offence but same was found locked and on the next day said ASI of Police secured the presence of independent witnesses, examined and recorded their statements further secured the presence of mediators and observed the scene of offence and seized kerosene plastic bottle, burnt blouse, burnt sari, burnt petty coat, further prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 13.03.2016 L.W.20-B. Dora Swamy, SI of Police, Guntakal I Town P.S took up investigation and verified the investigation of said
ASI. On 15.03.2016 at 11.30 am the SI of Police received death intimation of deceased from GGH, Anantapuramu and re-registered the case by altering Section of Law from 307 r/w 34 IPC to 302 r/w 34 IPC and submitted express FIR to all concerned officers including
P.W.16-P. Prasad Rao, Inspector of Police, Guntakal Urban Circle and said Inspector of
Police took up investigation and secured the presence of blood relatives of deceased i.e., 2/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016 P.Ws.1 and 2, L.W.3-Boya Jyothi, L.W.4-Boya Jagannath, inquest panchayathdars and held inquest over the dead body of deceased at GGH, Anantapuramu. After completion of inquest said Inspector of Police forwarded the dead body of deceased for autopsy further examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.3 to 6. L.W.17-Dr. M. Srinivasa Naik,
Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College,
Anantapuramu conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued P.M.
Certificate. On 26.03.2016 at 6.30 am while P.W.7-P. Kedarnath Reddy was at his house
A.1 and A.2 went there and introduced themselves to him further admitted the guilt relating to commission of offence in detail. The said Kedarnath Reddy recorded extra judicial confession statement of A.1 and A.2 and produced them before the Police at 8.00 am, then
P.W.16 Inspector of Police secured the presence of two mediators and interrogated both accused in the presence of said mediators for which both accused corroborated as appearing in their confessional statements then said Inspector of Police arrested the accused under cover of mahazar and sent them for remand.
2.Considering the material on record, the Learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Guntakal took the case on file u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC against accused as PRC
No.12/2016 and furnished copies of documents on which prosecution proposed to rely, soon after the accused made their appearance and committed the case to the Sessions Division by his order dated 17.06.2016 by adopting procedure contemplated u/s 209 Cr.P.C. as the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions.
The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu took the case on file against accused u/s 302 IPC and made it over to this Court for disposal according to law.
3.On appearance of accused before this Court an opportunity was given to the prosecution and also defence to submit its version at the stage of framing charges.
Considering the material on record after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for state and defence counsel charge u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC against accused was framed read over and explained said charge to them in Telugu for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.To substantiate the case of prosecution totally 16 witnesses are examined as
P.Ws.1 to 16 apart from exhibiting 26 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.26 and 4 material objects as M.Os.1 to 4. As the learned Additional Public Prosecutor gave up rest of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet prosecution side evidence was closed.
3/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016
5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused were examined u/s 313
Cr.P.C. putting incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.
6.Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for complainant/state and defence counsel.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the death of deceased was due to burnt injuries found on her person when brought to the hospital and that the evidence of P.W.14-K. Vasudeva Rao, JFCM, Guntakal and also Ex.P.16 statement of deceased further detailed statement of deceased recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by said ASI of
Police established that the accused were responsible for the homicidal death of deceased, therefore both the accused are liable to be punished for the offence charged.
The defence counsel submitted that except the alleged dying declaration of the deceased there is no other corroborative evidence in support of the version of prosecution that the accused intentionally poured kerosene upon the deceased and set her to fire. He further submitted that the deceased who was found suffered with burnt injuries all over the body had not given any such statements to ASI of Police and he prepared
Exs.P.16 and P.19 to the version of relatives of deceased as the deceased was unable to give any statement and obtained thumb impression of deceased in Ex.P.16 and the same cannot be believed. He further submitted that even Ex.P.12 dying declaration recorded by
Magistrate is not consistent and in view of the contrary version appearing in Ex.P.12 dying
declaration in the light of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 during cross examination that the deceased used to threaten the family members in the state of intoxication that she would set herself to fire and implicate them in a criminal case, it is not safe to base conviction on such contradictory version of the deceased. Thus he submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and they are entitled to be acquitted of said charge.
7.Now the point for determination is, “Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that on 11.03.2016 at 4.00 pm at the house of deceased A.1 and A.2 poured kerosene upon the deceased and set her to fire intentionally to cause her death thereby committed murder as pleaded by the prosecution?
8.POINT:-It is not in dispute that the deceased died due to burnt injuries suffered by her on 11.03.2016. It is also not in dispute that A.2 P. Latha @ Puspalatha @ 4/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016 Guljar Begum is the daughter of deceased. P.W.1-Tatakula Boya Nagarjuna is the son and
P.W.2-Tatakula Boya Neelavathi is the daughter-in-law of deceased and P.Ws.3 to 6 are the residents of locality where the house of deceased is situate. As per the version of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 6 are the eye witness to the alleged incident.
(i)P.W.1-Tatakula Boya Nagarjuna and his wife P.W.2-Tatakula Boya Neelavathi have stated in their respective evidence before this Court that A.1 and A.2 had loved each other and got married 6 years prior to the death of deceased and both of them lived along with deceased at her house till they gave birth to a child thereafter A.1 and A.2 put up separate family at a house adjacent to the house of deceased. Both of them further stated in their respective evidence that there were no disputes or differences between the deceased and accused at any time. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that about 8 months back at about 7.00 pm while he was working near Guntakal Bus Stand he was informed by phone that his mother sustained burnt injuries and by the time he went to the house, his mother was shifted to Hospital and on his inquiry his mother informed him at the hospital that she sustained burn injuries accidentally while cooking food later they shifted his injured mother to Govt. Hospital, Anantapuramu for better treatment but she died while undergoing treatment. P.W.2-Tatakula Boya Neelavathi stated in her evidence that about 8 months back at about 7.30 or 8.00 pm while he was working at a house of one Eswaraiah, near SLV
Theater, Guntakal he was informed by phone that her mother-in-law sustained burnt injuries and by the time he went to her house, her mother-in-law was shifted to Hospital and she went to the Hospital and found her mother-in-law was not in a position to talk,later they shifted his injured mother-in-law to Government Hospital, Anantapuramu for better treatment but she died while undergoing treatment.
(ii)P.W.3-K. Kalpana, P.W.4-Chakali Suseelamma,P.W.5-Chakali Eeramma,
P.W.6-Boya Lakshmi have stated in their respective evidence before this Court that A.1 and
A.2 were living separately near the house of deceased and that there were no disputes or differences between the accused and deceased at any time. All of them further stated in their respective evidence that about one year back at about 6.00 pm when they came back to the house after attending to their regular work they came to know that the deceased who was in fully drunken state poured kerosene upon her and set herself to fire and she was taken to the Government Hospital.
(iii)Though the learned Additional Public Prosecution cross examined P.Ws.1 to 6 no material is brought on record in support of the version of prosecution that the accused poured kerosene upon the deceased and set her to fire. 5/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016
9.P.W.7-P. Kedarnath Reddy the then VRO, Guntakal stated in his evidence that on 26.03.2016 at 6.30 am at the instance of SI of Police, Guntakal I Town P.S. he went to the Police Station and subscribed his signature in the written mahazar at the instance of
Sub Inspector. On confrontation by placing alleged confessional statement accused stated that on 26.03.2016 at 6.30 am alleged requisition given by this witness he admitted his signatures on said two documents, but he stated in his evidence that he does not know the contents of said two documents. He also stated in his evidence that A.1 and A.2 were present at the Police Station when he went there on that day. He also stated in his evidence during cross examination on behalf of accused that said documents are not in his handwriting.
(i)P.W.8-K. Lakshmanaswamy, P.W.13-L. Mallesh are said to be mediators at the time of inspection of scene of offence and seizure of material objects by ASI of Police on 12.03.2016 at 8.00 am. Both of them have stated that Police neither inspected any place nor seized any material objects in their presence in this case and that at about one year back on one day when they went to the Guntakal I Town P.S. on their personal work ASI of
Police obtained their signature on a written statement without informing the contents therein.
(ii)P.W.9-Dudekula Alla Vali, P.W.10-B. Mallikarjuna are said to be mediators at the time of inquest held over the dead body of deceased by Inspector of Police on 15.03.2016. Both of them have stated in their respective evidence that they do not know the person by name Boya Narayanamma (deceased) and that Police did not conduct any inquest over the dead body deceased Narayanamma in their presence. On confrontation by placing inquest report dated 15.03.2016 both of them admitted their signatures therein and stated that they put their signatures in that report at Government Hospital and they do not know the contents of the said statements.
(iii)Ex.P.15 is the P.M. Certificate pertaining to the deceased. As per Ex.P.15
P.M. Certificate, “Ante mortem mixed degree flame burns present over the scalp, face, and front & back of the neck, front and back of the chest, front of the abdomen up to the lower abdomen, both sides of the Upper limbs, front and back of the Lower limbs except front of right thigh and front of upper half the left thigh. (80% of body surface involved in mixed degree flame burns)”.
6/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016
(iv)The author of said certificate opined that the death of deceased to the best of his knowledge and belief as : “Shock due to burns with its sequele (80% of body surface involved in mixed degree flame burns)”.
(v)There is no much dispute that the death of deceased was on account of burn injuries found suffered while she was taken to the Hospital on that fateful day.
10.Now the crucial point for determination is whether the accused caused the said injuries to the deceased as alleged by the prosecution?
(i)P.W.14-K. Vasudeva Rao stated in his evidence that on 11.03.2016 at about 7.30 pm he received requisition from Government Hospital, Guntakal through Papi Raju,
M.N.O. Government Hospital, Guntakal to record the dying declaration of B. Narayanamma,
W/o. Sanjappa, thereupon he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Guntakal and at about 7.40 pm he identified the deponent Narayanamma through the duty doctor B. Lingeswara
Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon and after putting preliminary questions to ascertain the state of mind of the deponent and after satisfying himself, that the deponent was in a fit state of mind, he recorded her dying declaration. He further stated in his evidence that said
Narayanamma stated to him that her daughter Guljar Begum @ Latha married Usman and her daughter was residing in her house and she resisted Usman from entering into her house and she also stated to him that her daughter Guljar Begum at first married to one
Mallikarjuna and as they did not have conjugal life, Usman eloped her daughter and both of them resided at some place for a period of one year, thereafter her daughter came back to her house and she was residing with them and Usman used to come to her house every day and pick up quarrel with her at about 11.00 pm and she also used to abuse him and on that day at about 4.00 pm the said Usman kicked her with his leg and demanded her to die by uttering the words as “NEEVU CHACCHIP LANJA” further kicked her abusing her as “DENGUTHANU” and when he tried to catch hold her she herself poured kerosene upon her and lit fire and Usman lit fire and by that time her daughter Guljar Begum was also present in her house and her daughter tried to caught hold Usman and Usman did not hear her daughter, Usman used to abuse her daily and due to that unbearable abuse, she poured kerosene upon herself. He further stated in his evidence that reason for burnt of her body is Usman and she also stated that her daughter Guljar Begum put of the fire and her neighbours brought her to the hospital. The learned Magistrate identified Ex.P.11 as the said hospital intimation, Ex.P.12 as the dying declaration of the declarant, Exs.P.13 and
P.14 as the said endorsement made by duty doctor who was present along with him while recording statement. 7/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016
(ii)P.W.15-P. Ramachandra Reddy stated in his evidence that on 11.03.2016 at 7.45 pm he received medical intimation from Government Hospital, Guntakal then he made
G.D. Entry and proceeded to Government Hospital, Guntakal and identified injured
Narayanamma (deceased) and duty doctor who was attending on that injured
Narayanamma certified that said Narayanamma was in conscious state and endorsed the same accordingly then he recorded the statement of said Narayanamma and identified
Ex.P.16 as the said statement of said Narayanamma and Ex.P.17 as the endorsement of the doctor. He further stated in his evidence that he went back to the Police Station and registered a case in Cr.No.30/2016 u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC on the strength of Ex.P.16 statement and submitted Ex.P.18 printed FIR along with Ex.P.16 statement to the Court, further he went to the scene of offence but the house was found locked and he examined and recorded statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 at Government Hospital, Guntakal and also examined and recorded the statements of injured Narayanamma and identified Ex.P.19 as the said statement. On confrontation P.W.15 stated in his evidence during cross examination that the Magistrate was inside and recording the statement of injured Narayanamma by the time he reached the Government Hospital and he recorded statement of injured Narayanamma at about 8.00 pm and one hour after departure of Magistrate from that hospital he concluded recording of statement of said injured person. He denied the suggestion put to him on behalf of accused that he did not record the statements of injured person and he prepared
Ex.P.16 to the narration of P.Ws.1 and 2 and he did not further examine and record the statement of deceased Narayanamma and he prepared Ex.P.19 by seeing Ex.P.16.
(iii)P.W.15 did not state in his evidence before this Court about what the deceased stated to him, but he stated in his evidence as mentioned above that he recorded the statement of Narayanamma and identified Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.19 as her statements recorded by him.
(iv)The material portion of Ex.P.16 reads as, “ఈ రజ అనగ 11.03.2016వ తద సయంతరము సుమరు నలుగు గంటల సమయమున నను మ ఇంటల వండన న అలులడ కతురున ఇలుల ఖళచయమన చపపనను అపపడ న అలులడ ఈ లంజముండన చంపత మనుము ఈ ఇంటలన వండవచుచ అన అంటు ననున చంపలన ఉదదశముత మ ఇంటలవనన కరసన బటల తసుకన వచచ న తల మద పస అగగపలలత అంటంచనడ న కతురు లత (గులజర బగం) కడ ముండ చవనల మక మంచద మము ఇంటలన వండవచుచ అన మపప తన భరతను ననున చంపడనక పరతసహంచంద. న అలులడ అగగపలల అంటంచగన నను ఆ మంటలక తటటకలక గటటగ అరవగ".
The material portion of Ex.P.19 reads as, “ఈ రజ అనగ 11.03.2016వ తద మధయహనము సుమరు 2 గంటల సమయమున నను న కతుర లతలు ఇంట నందు వండగ ఉసమన ఇంటక వచచ నత గడవ పటుటకన మము ఇళల ఖళ చయము, ఇకకద వంటము అన చపపనడ అందుక 8/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016 నను లదు మరు ఖచచతంగ ఇళుల ఖళ చయనంద, మరు ననున చల బధ పడతుననరు, రజ రజక మ భధలు ఎకకవ అవతుననవ అన గటటగ అరవగ అందుక లత, ఉసమనుల ననున చతులత కటట ఇంటల నుండ వళలప అంటూ బయటక గంటవసనరు. మరు ననన ఇంటల నుండ బయటక నూకతర అంటు లపలక వళలగ అపపడ ఉసమనఇంటల వనన కరసన బటల ను తసుకన వచచ ఈ లంజముండన చంపత మనం ఇళుల వదల పయపనలదు ఇళుల మనక దకకతుంద అన సయంతరం సుమరు 4 గంటలపపడ బటల వనన కరసనయలును న ఒంటపై పసనడ, అపపడ న కతురు లత అగగపటట తసుకన వచచ తన భరతక యచచ అగగపటుట, ఈ ముండ చవన పడ వరగడ అవతుంద, దనక దకకవరు వసతరు అతట పరతసహంచగ ఉసమన అగగపలలగస నక అంటంచనడ. ఆపపడ నక మంటలు అంటుకన నను ఆ మంటలక తటుటకలక గటటగ అరుసూత".
11.As seen from the aforesaid contents of Exs.P.16 and P.19 there is a material discrepancy with respect to overt acts attributed to A.1 and A.2 as it got mentioned in
Ex.P.19 as if both the accused beat the deceased with hands and legs and necked her out of the house, but those overt acts are not appearing in Ex.P.16 and also in Ex.P.12 dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate. There is also material discrepancy in
Exs.P.16 and P.l19 as it got mentioned in Ex.P.16 that A.1 lit fire to deceased after A.1 pouring kerosene upon her, but it got mentioned in Ex.P.19 that A.2 had brought match box after A.1 poured kerosene upon her and handed it over to him asking him to lit fire to deceased thereupon A.2 lit fire to her. But as per the evidence of P.W.14-K. Vasudevarao,
JFCM and Ex.P.12 dying declaration no such overt acts attributed to A.2, on the other hand
A.2 tried to catch A.1. Further the evidence of JFCM and Ex.P.12 dying declaration shows that version of deceased is not consistent on material aspects and self contradictory as she stated at one stage that when A.1 tried to catch her she herself poured kerosene and set herself to fire and in the immediate sentence she stated that A.1 lit fire to her.
(i)The learned defence counsel referred the following decision in support of his submissions that alleged dying declarations of deceased cannot be relied on and the accused cannot convicted basing on such dying declaration of deceased in the absence of any corroborative evidence.
(1) Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011 (1) ALT (Crl.) 135 (SC)) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when a dying declaration suspicious it should not be relied upon without having corroborative evidence.
(2) Sundarapalli Satyanarayana @ Sattibadu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2011 (1) ALT (Crl.) 641 (AP)) where it was held as, “The contradictions in Exs.P.1 and P.4 statements are (a) in Ex.P.1, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased while in Ex.P.4, the accused beat the deceased (b) in
Ex.P.1 the accused sprinkled kerosene found in the house over the deceased while in Ex.P.4, the 9/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016 accused poured kerosene from the lamp, and (c) in Ex.P.1, the accused lit fire to the deceased with match sticks while in Ex.P.4 the accused lighted the body of the deceased with the kerosene lamp.
If the above inconsistencies are viewed in isolation, each of the three inconsistencies if a minor inconsistency. Viewed comprehensively, the differences of not one but three aspects become a major issue of contradiction. Add to it is the fact that there was no direct evidence at all barring for the statements of the deceased. In such an event, the inconsistencies in the statements of the deceased become glaring contradictions. Where there was no direct evidence and where the two statements under Exs.P.1 an P.4 were recorded with a small gap about 20 minutes, the differences in the mode and manner of the incident as narrated in Exs.P.1 and P.4 become flagrant leading to circumstances where it would not be safe to convict the accused on the strength of Exs.P.1 and P.4 which did not agree with each other”.
(3) Vadde Pallepu Sekhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011 (2) ALD (Crl.) 396 (AP)) where it was held, “There cannot be any dispute that when there are more than two dying declarations, there must be consistency with regard to all the dying declarations. If one dying declaration is inconsistent with the other, no implicit reliance can be placed on the dying declarations. In view of the fact that the two dying declarations are not consistent on material particulars and the third dying declaration has been suppressed by the prosecution, in such circumstances, the two dying declarations require corroboration. There is no such corroboration. Therefore, this aspect of the case has not been considered by the trial Court in a right perspective. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside”.
(ii)As submitted by defence counsel P.Ws.1 and 2 who are no other than the son and daughter-in-law of deceased stated in their respective evidence during cross examination that the deceased was in the habit of consuming alcohol and while she was in the state of intoxication she used to threaten them to implicate in criminal case by setting herself to fire. In view of said evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the light of self contradictory version of deceased before learned Magistrate further on account of distorted version of deceased appearing in the statement given to the learned Magistrate and in the alleged statement given to the ASI of Police as detailed earlier one will get a reasonable doubt about the correctness of the version of the deceased.
(iii)P.W.16-P. Prasada Rao, Inspector of Police stated in his evidence that on 26.03.2016 at 8.00 am while he was at his Office P.W.7-Kedarnath Reddy came there along with A.1 and A.2 and handed over Exs.P.25 and P.26 confessional statements of accused along with his requisition Ex.P.24. He further stated that he interrogated A.1 and A.2 in the presence of P.W.11-Mahesh and L.W.16-M.P. Nagaraju and arrested the accused by 10/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016 preparing mahazar incorporating the confession of accused and admissible portion of said mahazar is marked as Ex.P.10.
(iv)P.W.11-T. Mahesh stated in his evidence that on 26.03.2016 at about 9.00 am at the instance of Police Constable he went to the Police Station and by that time A.1 and A.3 were already there and on his inquiry A.1 and A.2 stated to him separately that the deceased demanded them to vacate the house where they were residing along with deceased thereupon they decided to kill her, accordingly A.1 poured kerosene upon the deceased and set her on fire and identified the confessional-cum-arrest mahazar dated 26.03.2016 at 9.00 am as the said mahazar and admissible portion of said mahazar is marked as Ex.P.10.
(v)As mentioned above P.W.16 Inspector of Police stated that he interrogated
A.1 and A.2 in the presence of P.W.11-Mahesh and L.W.16-Nagaraju but he did not state about inquiry of A.1 and A.2 by P.W.11 separately. On confrontation P.W.16 stated in his evidence during cross examination with respect to scribe of said mahazar that P.W.11 scribed the said mahazar, whereas P.W.11 stated in his evidence during cross examination that Station Writer scribed the said mahazar while accused narrating incident.
(vi)As mentioned earlier P.W.7-Kedarnatha Reddy did not support the prosecution version about alleged extra judicial confession made to him by the accused and recording the same by him and producing the accused before the Inspector of Police. Even as per the version of P.W.11 and P.W.16 no incriminating material object was recovered basing on the alleged confession of accused. As per the version of P.W.11 and P.W.16 the alleged interrogation and alleged confession of accused was in the presence of Police.
Therefore the alleged confession of accused before the Police about the alleged commission of offence is not admissible in evidence. Therefore the evidence of P.W.11 and P.W.16 in that regard is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the allegations leveled against the accused.
12.Except said dying declarations of the deceased recorded by learned
Magistrate and the alleged statement of deceased to the ASI of Police there is no other
corroborative evidence on record in support of the version of prosecution that A.1 and A.2 poured kerosene upon the deceased and set her to fire with an intention to kill her. As the said alleged dying declarations of deceased do not inspire any confidence in view of the material discrepancies and contradictions as observed earlier, it is not safe to base conviction of accused on such dying declarations of the deceased in the absence of any corroborative evidence. The proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and 11/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016
Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the said referred decisions supports the submissions of defence
counsel in that regard.
Therefore it can be concluded safely that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence charged u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled to be acquitted of said charge by extending benefit of doubt. Accordingly this point is answered.
13.In the result A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty of the offence u/s 302 r/w 34
IPC and they are acquitted of said charge u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by accused and their sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months. The case property produced i.e., M.O.1 party burnt sari, M.O.2 blouse, M.O.3 petty coat and M.O.4 empty bottle are ordered to be destroyed subject to appeal provisions.
Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in
the open court this the 17th day of April, 2017.
VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Gooty. Appendix of evidence
Witness examined for
Prosecution Defence
P.W.1 Boya Nagarjuna -None-
P.W.2 Boya Neelavathi
P.W.3 K. Kalpana
P.W.4 C. Suseelamma
P.W.5 C. Eeramma
P.W.6 B. Lakshmi
P.W.7 P. Kedarnath Reddy
P.W.8 K. Lakshmana Swamy
P.W.9 Dudekual Allavali
P.W.10 B. Mallikarjuna
P.W.11 T. Mahesh
P.W.12 Shaik Mahaboob Basha
P.W.13 L. Mallesh
P.W.14 K. Vasudeva Rao
P.W.15 P. Ramachandra Reddy
P.W.16 P. Prasad Rao 12/13
S.C.No.423 of 2016 Exhibits marked for Prosecution
Ex.P.1: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.8: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.9: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.10: Admissible portion in the Mahazar dated 26.03.2016 Ex.P.11: Hospital intimation Ex.P.12: Dying declaration Ex.P.13: Endorsement of Duty Doctor on D.D. Ex.P.14: Endorsement of Duty Doctor on D.D. Ex.P.15: Post mortem certificate Ex.P.16: Statement of injured Narayanamma Ex.P.17: Endorsement of Doctor in Ex.P.16 statement Ex.P.18: Printed FIR Ex.P.19: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of injured Narayanamma Ex.P.20: Seizure mahazar of material objects Ex.P.21: Rough sketch Ex.P.22: Altered FIR Ex.P.23: Inquest report Ex.P.24: Requisition of P.W.7 Ex.P.25: Confession statement of A.1 Ex.P.26: Confession statement of A.2 Exhibits marked for the defence -Nil- Material Objects marked M.O.1 party burnt sari M.O.2 blouse M.O.3 petty coat M.O.4 empty bottle VI Addl. S.J.
13/13