The High Court · 2025

undergo life ir r-,risonment. The appellant herein is .lrrayed as accusecl I.lr - and he was tried along with accuserl Nos.2 and 3 for ttLr' 'Ii:nces punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 o[]FL 'rnd 304-8 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3, and Section l( I of IPC simplicitor against accusecl J'1o.1

2. Heard { arned counsel for the appe llart and Sri M.\/rvt:liz r randa Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor .t,r r r:spondent - State. Perused the record

3. Learn,:rl iessions Judge, after conducting, the trial, acquitted a,:,:r r.ed Nos.2 and 3 and convicted the atr:pellant for the offe rLc r under Section 3O2 of IPC. Appe l1a nt was 2 \ ..\. l \\ acquitted for the offences under Sections 304-8 of IPC and 498-4 read with 34 of IPC.

4. The deceased, namely Sandhya, is the wife of the appellant. The marriage of the appellant and the deceased was performed on 25.05.2014. At the time of marriage, gold and silver ornaments and cash of Rs.SO,OOO f - were given as dowry. It is a-lleged that after the marriage, the appellart herein and accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, harassed the deceased.

5. The incident happened on 2I.O9.2O15, when the appellalt and the deceased were in the house. According to the prosecution case, the appellant set hre to the deceased, resulting in the deceased receiving severe burn injuries. The deceased was taken to the hospital by the appellant after pouring water on her. On information given by PWl at about OO:30 hrs on 22.09.2015, which is a telugu written complaint-EXPl, the FIR was registered. The requisition (Ex.P12) was given to the Magistrate-PWl6 on2l.O9.2075 at about 1O:20 PM for recording the dying declaration. The magistrate went to the hospital and recorded the statement/ dying declaration of the deceased, which was 3 marked as E rP13. The deceased died on 22.O9.2a15, i.e., the next da1 r 1 the incident-

6. The ]r.r::tigating Ofhcer, PW17, went to th,: r';cene of offence, w-ri,: - is the house of the appellant ztnrl there, Ex.P15/sccrrr ,rf offence panchanama was draftod. M.O.1, which is cillirr r t.te lighter, was seized from the bedroorn.

7. After ';-. death of the deceased on 22.O().2(t 15, the inquest prc<: :dings were conducted around 2 FM,. and thereafter. th r body was sent for postmortem exarrrination. The postrrL<)r ,:m doctor opined that the death was on account of "rr. n injunes" received by the deceased.

8. The z.1rg.llant was charge sheeted along with ilccused Nos.2 and 3 . I lowever, only the appellant was convi:ted, as stated abovt

9. Pws.I t< ii, who are the relatives of the deceitst:d, have stated abort r he physical and mental harassrrtent by the appellant ir- .'Le purpose of additional dowr1,. Ho'*re ver, the trial Court Ci< aot hnd favour with the version of harassment for dowry :,. either the appellant or anyonr: e.se and 4 \ \ accordingly acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 498-4 read with 34 of IPC.

10. Sri Pratap Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant submitted that the dyrng declaration is the only evidence that was considered by the trial Court and on the basis of the said dying declaration, the conviction was recorded. In fact, the said dying deciaration is a result of a tutoring by the relatives of the deceased, PWsl to 5. Such tutored statement of the deceased cannot be considered. Once the Court has found that there was no harassment for dowry and acquitted the appellant and other accused, the question of appellant burning the deceased on the date of the incident does not arise. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shailc Bakshu u. State of Maharashtral, wherein it was held as under:- "14. So far as the presence of the relatiues and the tutoring ospect i.s concem.ed, the High Court held thot there cannot be a possibilitg of tutorirry Vo Rubina for fabelg implicating the appellants in the offence because of the promphtess in recording the dying decl.aration bg PW 1 artd PW 3. The conclusion is clearlg ba-sed on surmises and, conjectures. Another fallacg in the conclusions of the High Court and the ' l2oo7l rt scc 269 ) tial ':oun t's that mere change in the ptace of oct:urrertct, as bont<: cut t,'' the dying declaration, as projected Lt1 the prose,culion ,ith reference to the spot panchnama L'es not matedaL rt, L ordirLg to the deceosed, the occurrence to,.tl^.. piace in the b,zLLr 'tm. It i-s to be noted that no mark of burn tryury . was notit tz t. in the bedroom and theA uere noticecl in the kitchen 'lh lTigh Court noted, euen if spot of occurrence nr"s not be-ett c t..ectla stated bg the deceosed same L; of no consequet\: That certainlg has effect on the credihititg of the dging cle .h t ttion, contrary to Luhat the Higtt Cottt |tas obser.-ec. ,1 . her aspect which assumes great imporl:anct, b that in tL e c .ing declaration the deceased stated. thtzt she, tns brough.t c t L t hospital bg a neighbour but the official racord.s shotu th(tt s i,:t was brought to the hospital bg Accuse,l 2 t e., sister in att tt tuas categorballg asked. to the doctor Luhetiter in the ad,r t: .:on register it utas recorded that the injui,ts tttere due tc, the ct t idental burns. He stated that the Luitn.ess hrts ,-rot gon-e lh.rcucri the register of that date".

11. l,earnec : ]unsel also relied upon the judgm.ent of the Hon'ble Sr.rpr:r r o Court in case of Sureslr a. State Rep. bg Inspector orf P'tlice,z wherein it was held as uncler:- " 14. ,4s declnratic n L the altse,t "= presen.t cne, stance anul such a dgbLg conuiction i,t l'.scussed aboue, in cases rahere the dgittg ::ttspicious, it is not safe to conuirt an accused. in -'f corroboratiue euidence. In a ca-se like tne uhere the deceased hos been chang tg l,.er '1,:Ls completelA tumed around her statemen' s, , Leclaration cannot become the soLe ba-sb .for t,\e t e absence of any other coroborottue e-uid_e,nce. AIR 2025 SCC r: 6 I 6 \

15. On thi-s point, the prosecution u.tould argue that Obseruatinn Mahazar prepared. bg PW-15 tatks about the recouery of an emptg kerosene can and match stick from the spot. PW-15 also mentioned in the Obseruation Mahazar that uhen he uisited the deceased's house on 15.09.20O8, it uos fuLl of the smeLl of burnt kerosene. According to the prosecution, this Mahazar corroborates the dging declnration made bA the deceased. Houteuer, the ueracitg of thi.s Obseruation Mahazar is itself in doubt. Apart Jrom the fact that there had been an inordinate delay in sending the Mahozar to Court, the a./itnesses (PW-S and PW-6) to the seizure of the aboue articles had also been declared lustile. PW-S and PW-6 deposed tha.t the site wos ui.sited bA PW-15 but theg dirl not support that anA orticles with kerosene sm.ell were seized from the place".

12. Referring to the frndings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Suresft (Supra), the learned Senior Counsel argued that the Investigating Officer admitted that in the scene of offence it was written that the incident happened in the bedroom, whereas the contents of the dying declaration reflects that the incident happened in the kitchen, which is contradicting one another. In the said circumstances, the version given by the deceased in the dying declaration cannot be believed. Except for the dying declaration, there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. 7

13. Learned t,isistant Public Prosecutor ar€iLlecl that the harassment is; Lpparent from the evidence of witnesses, PWs. 1to5 allt: l-hey have specifically stated abottt the harassment f'rr :rdditional dowry. The contents ol E>..P2, a Ietter, shows .l-Lat it is a suicide note written t,y the deceased, arul .ie same was recovered from the alrri.:ah in the house. TlLe ,;aid letter was a,Iso sent to the ha r dr,rriting expert for lh: I rLrpose of examination. When the evidence of PWs.l to 5 an I EX.P2 is looked into, it is clear thrrt the deceased !\'as s. bjected to harassment. Further, on th,: date of the incidr:n1 it was the appellant who set flre -o the deceased, resrrrl lng in her death-

14. Pws. 1 tr 5 who are the relatives of the d,:c,.:ased, stated about :t r harassment by the appellant and a.so by accused Nos.21 and 3. The version of harassnr:n1 was disbelievecl t,5 fre tria-l Court since the allegati6n s made were omnibru; rn nature and could not be beLit:ved on account of. tlr': r rtntradictory nature of the evidenci: of the witnesses. Th: >rosecution has not preferred an.y a.ppeal against the zx c rttal of A2 and A3 or the acquittal of the appellant for th< :rffence under Section 498-A of IpC. 8 YI

15. The crucial ewidence is the staternent rnade by the deceased to the Magistrate-PW16. PW16 went to the hospital, and having been satisfied that the patient was in a fit state of mind, started recording the statement' The duty doctor endorsed that the patient was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give the statement'

16. In the statement made, the magistrate questioned as follows:- "Q. Hout did gou receiue these injuies and at uthat time? Ans. On the dag of Vinagakachauathi festtual, me and mg husband quarreled. My mother-in-lanu is staging separatelg ' We are also staying separately ' My rnother-in-la ut hand was fractured. and I d.aitg go to her residence' In between our house and mother-in-lanu house, there are couple of houses' My husband- uorks ruith tlrc organization snapdeal' Today he did not go to dutg, I questioned mg husband os to uhg he did rrot go to the duty. He said that he tuould do as he likes' Then I questioned that he should' go to his duty' Mg husband replied that I was at rLsk and asked me to die' I questioned a's to u-thg Aou are saging so. Mg husband stated that he tuould be at peace, if she dies- Then I went into the house to take a bath, I kept uater on the stoue to hedt' Mg husband said that he uould light the kerosene stoue and o'sked me to heat utater on the kerosene stoue. I remoued the kerosene tin' uhen the kerosene fell on me- He saw me I had a burning sensation' I 9 rubbed of tLt that I u,tos tt,t a bath. He ,t., asked him t:t do it. He tc ct hanginq ou =. remoue ma 3t went out c.r' c onlg there in t Seueral pers o people bror., g'h near ctne pt Rs.2,OO,)O): . There mg htL:;l the hospital. .\ since set ent) the aftem-oon". kerosene uith rice flour. My husban:l stated. . ";ting kerosene. I requested to get utoter to take :rtt outside and brought two bucket:; of utater. I :,tue a bath to me. Mg husband saicl he witt not '. a pen type lighter and set fire to n,A saree ,,:r/ shoulder. Fire engulfed, tuhen. I utc.s ,:rying to 't-e, mA husband poured one buckq oF tuater, :;tarted shouting. Me and mg hu:;L,an:d, u,tere I e house. Mg mother-in-law wen.t to the uillage. r s gathered. I said I tuanted to li..,tz r rs such . me an ambulance. I was taken t() .t iLospital ; net. Doctors said that tt ruoula :ost of ,crom there I was taken to Gand_4, L. ospital. rl.nd and maternal auntA came al.ong tuith me to tr husband i-s saging that he d.oe,s not t ike me trtgs. The incident happened, at about l;3O in

77. Learne'rl Si;e5"iorr" Judge has placed relianc: ,rn the statement of 1 - r: deceased given to the Magistrat,-.. In the said statemt:rrl the deceased stated that the mother in_law was staying :;e _rarately and the deceased and the apoellalt were stafng s( l rarately. In fact, on the date of thr: in,::ident, the mother-in-l rrv was not present. 18 A close f i,: -r-rtiny of the statement made by the rlec:eased would reflec: f - i1t no quarrel took place on the dilte of l0 I incident. The deceased was trying to take a bath after heating water. From the narration of the deceased in the statement, the appellant helped the deceased to wipe the kerosene that had fallen on her and thereafter went out at the request of the deceased and brought two buckets of water. After 'the appellant brought the water, the deceased requested the appellant to give her a bath. Thereafter, water was kept in the vessel on the kerosene stove for heating. According to the declaration, the appellant took out a lighter and set Iire to her saree

19. The narration given by the deceased would go to show that the appellant heeded to the request of the deceased to get water and thereafter, it is alleged that he set fire with the lighter. When the entire statement and the narration of the events are .taken into consideration, it appears that the husband, while trying to light the kerosene stove, set the deceased's saree on fire, and there is a probability of an accident. In the peculiar facts of the present case, when the entire narration is looked into, there was neither any quarrel, nor heated exchange ofwords between the appellant and the deceased. In fact, when the deceased was taking the kerosene fionr ': l':. top rack in the kitchen, the keroserre fell on her acciderl_; llf ald she had wiped out the kerosene with the help of ric: :l ur.

20. ln the s€Lirl opinion that t he: commit the mrrr< appears that .1r e lighting the stoi, present fact s, :lrt had the intent c.r.: her on fire or tlir Supreme Courl Lr And.hra Prad.e.s,h ,rrcumstances, we a_re of the consiciered r was no deliberate act of the appellant to r-r of the deceased or cause injury to h,,:r. It appellant had set fire to the sarr:e rrhile and it was totally unintentional I n the rr: is nothing to indicate that the hustrand

1.o cause death of the deceased by r;elting it would result in her death. l.he Horble r:ase of Pulicherla Nagaraju o. State of Lreld as under:- deci-d.e u'h-ethel ' Therefore, ilt question o_f trL :ourt should proceed to d_ecide the piuotol : rttion, tuith care and caution, as tltat ,t, ll lrc case falls und-er Sectinn 3O2 or 3O4 part t or 3O4 Part U , l.'.nA pettA or tnsignifirant matters Z phtcktnq of a fruit, stt atl '..t of a cattle, quanet of chiLdren, utteranc(, (\. a rude uor(l o euen an objectinnable glance, mag [ead t-,, oLtercation s ent qroup clasles culminating in d_eaths. tJsuc I m.otiues Like re t,nge, greed, jealousg or suspbion mag b,z totallg absettt - such cases. There mag be no intenhrtn. There ma4 be ., : .ore-med.itd.tian. In fact, there mny n()t euzt,_ be ciminolitu. ,4 the other end of ttte spec\utry there rnag \e ca.ses of mu<le ahere the accused_ attempts to auotd th( I l penalA for murder bA ottempting to put forth a cose that there was no Ttention to cantse deoth- It is for the courts to ensure that the co.ses of murder punishable under sectbn 3O2, ale not conuerted into offences punishable under section 3O4 Port I/ II, or cases of culpable homictde not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under section 3O2- The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or seueral of the following, among other, circumstance s : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) uhether the urcapon Luos carri.ed bg the accused or u.tas pbked up from the spot; (iii) uhether the blout is aimed at o uital part of the bodg; (iu) the amount of force emploged in causing injury; (u) uhether the act u.tas in the course of sudden quarrel or sud-den ftght or free for all fight; (ui) whether the incident occurs bg chance or whether there was anA pre- meditation; (uii) u-hether there u.tas ang pior enmity or u-thether the deceased wos a stranger; (uiii) uhether there u-)as anA graue and sudden prouocation, and if so, the cause for such prouocation; (ix) uthether it ua.s in the heat of pa.ssion; (x) uhether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue aduantage or ho.s acted in a cruel and unusuol manner; (xi) whether the acat sed dealt a single blow or seueral blou-ts. The aboue list of cbcumstances is, of aurse, not exhaustiue and there may be seueral other special circumstonces tuith reference to indiuirlual ca,ses which mag throu-.t light on the question of intention. Be that as it maA." l3

27. Tlre [ ,: 'ble Supreme Court, in case of Moh.d. Rafiq u. State of M,trlhga Pradesh, held as under:- "The qtL 7nnr5l,zt , homtcide [PC. L c:; and. hatf case '.c tt SeU€r'Lt I term'lil: higrl'ttt 7 nt ACCI1S C :1 IP() tt f, tc of the let behal tt de,tini:e Ly bettueer'. death I knctuteC, the de E r< of i.rLt€n t[ : lion of tuhether in a giuen case, Q hcr tciile is , tunishable under Sectian 302 IPC or . ul)')able ,.f either desciption, punishobLe under Sect[or 304 :'tgaged the attention of Courts in India for aL)et one t.:ntury, since the enactnl,ent of the IPC. A t.;elier of cn the aforesaid aspect exits , incluciingr perhaps .. ndred rulings bg the Supreme Court. The r;e <'f the 1,,," in seueraL places in respect of culpable homLcide, the element of uncertaintg that tlte act o_' the 1 t:tlJ or mag not haue killed the person. Sectior !l0O ; defines "murder", howeuer refererrce jrorn tht: use . tlkely, which reueal-s absence of amb.gu,ttr k ft on l\e accused. The accused i-s for sure th.at hA nct, u.till. cause death. It is often difficult to d's.inguish 'ulpabLe homtcide and murder as both in,tolue )i there i,s a subtle distinction of inter titn cLncl t inuolued in both the cim-es. Such differertce hes in ' of the act. There is a uery utide uarionce ol dt,gree t . and knowledge among both the cimes".

22. Even b ieving the version of the deceased tirat after wiping tht: I ,:rosene, the husband came back v,,ith two buckets of \\. er, lighting the saree with a lighte.r w,ruld fall within the 1o r: corners of Section 304 Part-II o1 lPO, which pertains to r:a L:sing death unintentionally. I L-- {. t4 l

23. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, converting the Section 302 of IpC to Section 304 part_Il of IPC and the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) years. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. M RAMANA KRTSHNA JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District

2. The Superintendent, Charlapally Jail, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to SRI N MANOHAR, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:1 0146t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.329 of 2020 PARTLY AL I.t )WING THE CRLA ,a<-;';;"sr'iii -) L) 1ti lrN 2$[ (' v C) \ I^ - /, -j ( i.,- a F'- t:.:: . ----, _ + o .) T ?dL