NELLI APPALRAJU v. THE STATE OF AP REP PP, Through Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Police

the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant:

1. LEGAL AID

2. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.9 of 2017 The Court made the following JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.83 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam is the appellant herein. The learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned judgment, dated

10.09.2015, the aforesaid Sessions Case, appellant/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), and accordingly convicted him of the said offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for ‘life’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.2500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The substance of the charge as against the accused is that on

19.02.2014 at 5.00 p.m. in the house of accused situated in Door No.12-167/2, Aganumpudhi S.C.Colony, he caused death of the deceased namely, Nelli Parvathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), by pouring kerosene on her and litting fire with a match 3 Crl.A.No.9 of 2017 stick. Prior to the aforesaid date, the deceased was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally by the accused for her earnings, for his vices.

3. Case of prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is briefly as follows:- (i) P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased and the accused. P.W.3 is related to the accused, whereas P.W.5 is brother of deceased. P.Ws.1 and 4 are neighbours of the deceased. The family of the accused consists of the deceased and two children. P.W.2 is the eldest daughter of accused. According to P.W.1, one and half year back, i.e., on 19.02.2014 the deceased died due to burn injuries. At about 5.00 p.m., while P.W.1 was present in his house, he heard shouts raised by the accused on the deceased. Immediately, he went out of the house and found the deceased in flames. Thereafter, P.W.1 covered the deceased with a tarpaulin and doused the flames. According to P.W.2, on the date of incident, she was playing outside of their house. The accused set fire to the deceased. According to her, the accused poured kerosene on her and set her to fire with a match stick. Having heard shouts, she immediately informed the same to P.W.3. 4 Crl.A.No.9 of 2017 (ii) On 19.02.2014 at about 5.30 p.m., P.W.11 Inspector of police received Dial 100 message from Hyderabad stating that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and lit fire to her in Aganumpudhi S.C.Colony. P.W.11 left the police station and reached the scene of offence and found the deceased. Thereafter the deceased was initially shifted to Community Health Centre, Aganampudi and later shifted to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. At the scene of offence, P.W.11 received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.11 registered the same as a case in Crime No.96 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC. Ex.P10 is the FIR. P.W.11 again proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared scene of observation report-Ex.P5 in the presence of P.W.8 and others. P.W.11 seized M.Os.1 to 7. P.W.11 prepared Ex.P11-rough sketch of scene of offence and got photographed the scene of offence through P.W.7 and he delivered Ex.P4 photographs. During the course of preparing Ex.P11-rough sketch, he recorded the statements of P.W.s1 to 5. He got the statement of victim recorded by P.W.9. (iii) On 24.02.2014 P.W.11 received death intimation of deceased and also received Ex.P2 complaint of P.W.2 through P.W.5. Basing on the same, P.W.11 altered the Section of law from 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. Ex.P12 is the altered FIR. Thereafter, P.W.11 held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of P.W.6 and 5 Crl.A.No.9 of 2017 others. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was sent to King George Hospital for conducting post- mortem examination. (iv) Though post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr.Y.Pydi Raju, he was not examined as he is no more. P.W.10 is the Assistant Professor who worked in Forensic Medicine, AMC, Visakhapatnam along with Dr.Y.Pydi Raju. The said Dr.Y.Pydi Raju expired in the month of June, 2015. He identified the signature of Dr.Y.Pydi Raju on the post-mortem certificate i.e., Ex.P9. He categorically stated that Ex.P9 is the post-mortem certificate issued and signed by Dr.Y.Pydi Raju. (v) On 21.02.2014 at about 8.30 a.m., P.W.11 took up further investigation. On receiving reliable information regarding the accused, he proceeded to the house of accused along with his staff and arrested him at 9.00 A.M. After following all formalities, he sent the accused for judicial custody. After receiving Ex.P9-post-mortem certificate and after completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed the charge sheet.

4. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, exhibited Exs.P1 to P13 besides marking M.Os.1 to 7. 6 Crl.A.No.9 of 2017

5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. On behalf of defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.D1 was marked.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred.

7. Heard. Perused the record.

8. On perusal of the entire material on record, it would go to show that except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the other evidence is not of much relevance to the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 is the neighbor of the accused and the deceased. According to him, on the date of the incident i.e., on 19.02.2014 at about 5.00 p.m., while he was present in the house, he heard the cries of the deceased and the accused. Then, he immediately went out of the house and found the deceased with flames and he immediately covered the deceased with a tarpaulin in order to douse the flames. Nothing has been elicited during the cross- examination of P.W.1 by the defence, to discredit his testimony.

9. P.W.2 is none other than the daughter of the accused and the deceased. According to her, as on the date of the incident, while she was playing outside the house, her mother died due to burn injuries. 7 Crl.A.No.9 of 2017 She further stated that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and lit her with a match stick. P.W.2 is a child witness, studying 4th class by the date of giving evidence. The learned Sessions Judge put some preliminary questions to her and after satisfying with the answers given by her, proceeded to record her evidence. In cross-examination, nothing has elicited to discredit her testimony.

10. P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased. According to him, P.W.2 is his niece. He stated that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased. The accused used to demand the amount for consuming liquor. Whenever the accused beat the deceased, P.Ws.1 to 5 and others used to bring the deceased to their house. Accused used to take her back. Fifteen days prior to the death of deceased, the accused had taken the deceased to his house. Later, P.W.5 received a phone call between 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m., stating that the deceased sustained burn injuries. She was shifted to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He understood that the accused poured kerosene and set her to fire.

11. P.W.6 is the panch witness to the inquest, P.W.7 is the photographer. P.W.8 is the mediator for scene of offence observation report. 8 Crl.A.No.9 of 2017

12. P.W.9 is the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who received intimation from King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam to record dying declaration, at about 8.20 P.M. on 19.02.2014. According to him, he returned to the hospital by 8.30 P.M. The patient was in Causality Ward. After putting some preliminary questions to ascertain the mental health condition of the patient, P.W.9 came to the conclusion that the patient was in fit state of mind to give her statement and he examined the patient. Ex.P7 is the dying declaration statement of the deceased.

13. In the Dying Declaration of the deceased, she stated that her marriage was performed with accused about 8 years back. She got two girl children. Since the date of marriage, there were disputes between the accused and the deceased. On the fateful day, in the evening at about 4.00 p.m., the accused asked money for consuming liquor. When she refused to give money, the accused quarreled with her and thereafter poured kerosene on her and lit fire to her. The said statement has been recorded by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and there are absolutely no infirmities in the Dying Declaration. On a bare perusal of the said statement, it is enough to come to a conclusion that it is the accused who caused the death of deceased by pouring kerosene on her and lit her to fire. 9 Crl.A.No.9 of 2017

14. Apart from the said dying declaration, there is direct evidence of P.W.2 who is none other than daughter of the accused and the deceased who deposed to the effect that on the date of the incident, the accused and the deceased were present in the house and a quarrel ensued between them. She categorically stated that it is the accused who poured kerosene on the deceased and lit fire to her. There is absolutely no cross-examination by the defence in respect of the said fact, so as to tilt the case of prosecution. Presence of P.W.2 is quite natural and probable at the scene of offence, which is none other than their house. P.W.2 has no grouse or enmity to implicate the accused falsely in a case of this nature. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 is trustworthy and acceptable.

15. In that view of the matter and on the above analyses, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment, dated 10.09.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam in S.C.No.83 of 2014 is a well reasoned one and calls for no interference by this Court as there is material evidence i.e., the dying declaration of the deceased to prove the guilt of accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 10.09.2015 in Sessions Case No.83 of 2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. As the 10 Crl.A.No.9 of 2017 appellant/accused was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated

20.01.2022, the learned trial Judge is directed to secure the presence of appellant/accused by issuing N.B.W. to serve the remaining sentence. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _____________________________ JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Dt. 23.10.2024 SAB 11 142 Crl.A.No.9 of 2017 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2017 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy) Date: 23.10.2024 SAB