Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant :Sri B Balaji, Legal Aid Counsel Counsel r the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, Additional Public prosecutor The Co,urt delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAI APPEAL No.839 of 2OL7 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) This Criminal Appea1 is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.06.2017 in SC/ST S.C.No.36 of 2016, on the file of the Special Judge for SC/ST (PoA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 3O2 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act.

2. Heard Sri B.Ba1aji, learned l,egal Aid Counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State- Perused I the'record.

3. The deceased, namely Sangeetha, died on account of receiving burn injuries. According to the statement made to the Police on 0l.02.2016 at O2.00 A.M., the accused with whom she was having a relationship, burnt her under the influence of alcohol. After the statement was recorded by PW. 1 1 / Sub- \ _----'}|- 2 l Inspector of Police' Magistrate/PW.8 for recording the dying declaration' a requisition was given to the

4. On the basis of the requisition' the Magistrate has reiorded the dying declaration of the deceased at 03'15 A M on ot.o2.2076. 5 In both the statements, the deceased narrated that the apPellant was under heavy influence of alcohol' beat her' poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire' During the said incident, the appellant also received burn injuries and he was admitted in the t o"pit"t ot Ol 'O2 '2016 and discharged on 10.03.2016' He was arrested on the date of discharge' i'e'' 10.03.2016. According to the investigation conducted by the Police, the deceased was earlier married to one M'Raju and out of the wedlock, she gave birth to one son and one daughter' Sipce M.Raju died, the deceased shifted to Siddipet with her children ald used to attend labour work' The appellant and the deceasedwereinalive-inrelationship.onthedateofthe incident, the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on frre. PW.3 is a neighbour, who speaks about hearing shouts of the deceased. They went to the place of incident and found tlle deceased in flames and they extinguished the fire Upon \_ 3 questioning by PW.3, the deceased informed him that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Similar is the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 who are the neighbors.

6. On the basis of the two dying declarations made by the deceased to the Sub-lnspector of Police and to the Magistrate concerned under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, coupled with the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, the appellant was convicted for the homicidal death of the deceased. 7 . Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that even according to the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, there were 997o burns on the deceased, and as such, the question of the deceased being conscious and speaking does not arise. Even assuming that the deceased was in a position to speak, however, on account of the I bulns, she was not in a coherent state and could not give better answers to the questions posed by the Magistrate. As seen from the answers given by the deceased, she stated that even during her life time, the appellant marrieC her. The said answers ofthe deceased would go to show that she was not in a position to understand the questions, and whatever she stated is incorrect. 4 1

8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn the attention of this Court that the lindings of the learned Sessions Judge are based on record ald argued that the findings need no interference.

9. The appellant also received burn injuries when the incident took place. In the dying declaration, the following questions recorded by the learned Magistrate are: "Question No. 17: Why did he do so? Ans. He came homoheavily drunk and beat me. Question No. 18; Did he beat earlier when he drunk? Ans. Whenever he comes home drunk, he used to beat, however, yesterday night he also poured kerosene and lit hre."

10. Having gone through both the statements made by the deceased before the Magistrate, the answers are consistent. After the statement was recorded, the duty Doctor again I endorsed that the patient was conscious, coherent, and in a ht state of mind. l,earned counsel pointed out that the statement was incoherent since the facts which lvere stated are incorrect. The said a-rgument cannot be accepted. The deceased consistently stated that she was living along with the appellant. The statement given to both the Police and also the Magistrate 5 is identical. Any minor deviations cannot form the basis to interfere with the statement made to the Magistrate, stating that the deceased was not in a fit state of mind while giving her statement. The appellant received 30%o burn injuries and was hospitalized for nearly 40 days and on the date of discharge, he was arrested by the police.

11. Even according to the appellant, he was present when the incident happened. However, he explained that he suffered fits and fell down, for which reason, he received burns to influence other parts of the body. The said version is not supported by the medical evidence. However, the fact remains that the appellant was heavily drunk.

12. The incident happened when the appellant was ln a ( drunken state. Admittedly, there were frequent quarrels t beiween the appellant and the deceased. The deceased narrated that the quarrel took place between them for the reason of appellant expressing his desire to marry someone else.

13. Exception 4 to Section 30O of IPC states that culpable homicide is not murder if committed without any premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or an unusual manner.

14. Admittedly, the incident happened when there was a quarrel between them and the appellant was in an intoxicated state. He also received burns during the incident which would reflect his intoxicated state. Accordingly, the conviction is altered to Section 3o4-ll of IPC

15. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed by altering the conviction under Section 3O2 of IPC to Section 304-II of IPC and the appellant is senfi:nced to undergo 1O years of rigorous imprisonment. The rest of the impugned Judgment holds good. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if atty, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTI FFICER To, 1 . The Special Judge for Trail of Offences Under the Scheduled Castes and Spheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional S6ssions Judge, medak at Sangareddy(With records, if any)

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

3. One CC to SRI B BALAJI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies { ADK/gho ,-':!:3ii"l I HIGH COURT DATED:1 110312025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.839 of 2017 " 'iH S ;i:; I JUr 2075 /,".\ i/.,.;- l(; 2 \\i I \ ,l)'i\ c) l,', .: ii PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA