Hyderabad High Court · 2025

THE HOIIOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURET{DER A}{D THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.796 OF 2OI7 JUDGMENT: (p.'r l7on'ltIt' Sri ./trsttct' K.Sut endet ) t. This app,:21 is filed aggrieved by the judgment clated

03.O7.2017 in :1.C.No.30 I o1 20 l-1, passed bv the tearnecl Xlll Additional Distrrcr and Sessions J udge-cum-Xlli /\ctclttlonal Metropolitan S essions ,J udge, C-r,berabacl ar 1..1J. Naghr, Ranga Redcly l)rstrict. convicting the appellant/,acc userl lbr- the ollences under Sectrons 498-t\ ancl 302 ol [l,C anrl sentencing to undergo ltle rmprisonment lbr the oltence under Section 302 ol lPC. ). Hearcl Mr. P. Vamsl-reeclhar Reddy, learned counsel lbr the appellant and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, [earne<[ Additronerl Public Prosecuti)r appearrng on behall of respondenr State.

3. The deceased is the u,ile o1 appellant. 'lhe case agarnsr the appeliant s thar on 20.O2.2O I3 at 09:00 l).M., rhe erppellant went .o the house in an angrv moocl anrl trskecl the cieceased to h;rve corclial relatlon rvith neight.ior nameh, Venkatamma, \r.ith \\'hom, he u,as havir-rg illici I intrmacr,. r3l' There \rra s quarrel when the deceased refused to the suggestion macle bv the appellant. Then the appellant got nild zrnd pourerl kerosene on her and set her on fire. Flames urere put otf bv the appeliant by pouring water on her and immediatel\', she rvas taken to Gandhi hospital for treatment. Tl-re Madh;rpur Police u,as inlbrmed on the next dav about the deceaserl receiving burn iniuries. PW14 who is the Sub- lnspector ol' Police went to hospital and recorded her statemenr at around l2:30 P.M. on 2l .O2.2O 13. ln the statemcnl glven to PW 14, the deceased stated that ori the previous dar,at 09:00 P.M.. the appellalt went to house in an angrv mrrorl atnrl asked her to behave properlv q'ith Vcrrkalamma. When she relused lbr the same, he took four litcrs ol l<erosenc. pourecl on her and set her on fire u'ith match strcl(. She sustatned heaw flames on the clothes and she came otrt running. The appellant then poured water s'ith .l p()1. 'l'11(' ou,ncr Laxmi who was examined as PWI u'ent thcre an(l changed her clothes. Then, Pastor namelv Veerasrvam r'/ PW4 and his wife Koteswaramma / PW3 shiftecl thc rleccascd to (iandhi hospital for treatment. Prlor lo the mitrnage. t he appellant ',va s having illegal contacts rvith Venk:rtatnma- Since the time ol marriage, the appellant rvas Y v harassing the rleceased mentallv ancl phvsicallv clemanciing the appeliant conrrnuecl t0 ercldirional do'"r,rry- Hou,ever, malntaln iilegal contact wirh Venkatamma who lvas havins three claughters. The appellant rvas also havrng ille.gal contacts rvrth some other u,omen. When thr cleceasecl questioned him, she u.as beaten up incliscrimrrLarrelv. l.he appellant coulci not avoid other illegal contacrs, lor whlch reason, he pourr:d kerosene on her and lit lire o. I rer rvith a. intention to kill lter. :+- Basing on the slatemenr ol vtctim, pW 14 registerecl iL case in Crime N o. 1'23 ol' 20 I 13 argainst the appeilant under Sections 49tl-A, 307 o1' IpC :rncl Secrior-rs 3 and 4 ol IJ.l,. r\c1 and took up inve stigal ion.

5. On the r.eqr-risition glven bv the Sub tnspector, Madhapur to the .jurisclicrion a[ Magrstrate/ pW I2, slrr: wenr to the hospital and :ecorded Dving f)er:laration at 02: l5 [).M. on 21.03.2013. In hr:r statement ro the Magistrate, the cteceased stated that the appellant clevelopecl illicrt conlzrcr wlrh Venkatamma u,ho u,as staving besicle the house. ,l'nere rt ere constant q uarrels in between them \r,lth regard to reJationship u,ith Venkarammzr. When the cleceasecl (luesrtone(.t itbout the relationship, appellant threatenecl l. leave the housr:.tct srar., .1 u,ith Vcnkatamma. Thcn. the appellant poured kerosene on hcr ancl lrl her on {ire. When the Magistrate questiorred, rvhether she can sav anvthing about Venkatamma, the rlecease<l answ,ered that Venkatamma was alreadv marned and pnor 1o their marriage. appellant fell in love with her and contrnuerl to have illegal relationship with her. For the said reason. tl.rc rluarrel tool< placc. (). Learne<l Sessions .J udge on the basrs of Dving I)eclaratron. convrcted the appellant, though the independent \vrtnesses r.c.. I)Ws. I to 4 turned hostile to the proseculron CA SO

7. I-carned counsel appearing fbr appellant would submlt that the rncrdent of burning has taken place at 09:00 P.M. on

20.O'2.'2O1.1 itself. hou,ever. no complaint was filed on the same rlar,. On tl-re ncxt da\,, the mother/PW6 rvent and met thc deceaserl at II:OO A.M. and therealter. both the Police an(l M.rglstrate recor(led their statements. The statement s grven lx, the clecease(i rvas a result of tutorlng bv PW6. [r-r fact. the :rplrellant w:rs 'nr the nerghboring house, when the rncident harl laken place- [iven according to PWs. I to 4. thc rleceaserl \\:as on fire ancl seerng that. the appellant \\'cnt there. extnrqulshed thc tire:rnr{ took her to the hospital. 7 t1 Learnecl c ounsel reltecl on the ju(iement ol [-ion'ble tt. Supreme Court in lrfan alias Naka u' Sto:te of Uttar Pradesht, u'her:rn, it is helcl as lollou's: "7'lre .lLrnstic tleont reqorcliq tlrc crcceptctbrLitrl ol tr cltlitq cleclarat.ton t-s lhctt suclt cle<:lorctttort rs trrrttlt' trt ,.,rri.nritl1, rttlen the 1;art.t1 is (1t tlrc poui ol deQtlt ot(l uhen eue't1 hope ol this uorkl Is qotP' tutrerr euerrl tnotiue to -lalsehood" rs silenced. artcl tlp rl(lrl I"i rttrluct'tl Ltrl the n'c. st pouterJul cottsrcleratlott to sl)eak otrltl tltt' ,,',.71r. 1'l)ntitltstanditlg the sottte' (lreQt c(tutiot' tttttsl l)? exerciseci ut considennq tle lueqt lo [tt' tltut'rr ttt tlrts species ol eutde:nce on occottttt ol llv e-Ylstetlce ol ttL(tttll tr'1llt' 'l'lt'. <'rrcnrn sl'artces tuhich mall a[lect tlPtr -srtLraliorr in tLtluch a rnatt t-s ott llte tlecttltlptl ts :'tt solemrr at'c) serene, is the reasorr ot IQLU to occepl tl(' ueracittl ri' hts staternent lt i's /br thi-s re(ts()tt' llte t't,qlliret e'fis ttl' oatlt turl ('ro-ss P\(tttlitt( tt)tt ttt ( rlrspense<, ruitli. Sirrcr: the rrccusecl ltrt's rtt.r l''oIt'et ol r'ro-s-s- e-r, rmi rtcttiort. tlle (ouns Irlslst lll(lt tltt' tltlrtttl r.lecLctrqtir.trt shottlcl be ol strt:lt a t(tnte (l's to Ll's/)Ir? /ti11 <tnLlicleru:,' ol' the c-ourL ttt it's tnttltluh'ess tottl correcltte::s. 'l-|rc courl, hotuerpr, slrctulcl ctLtucttl's l,lt' cttt tltrartl to:;ee tllat the stateilet ol llrc de<'eased rtrts rtttt ,./., ,, ,.'.r, 't ol tzither tut.oinq ot' proilpnrlq or o Droducl' ol Una(lttt(tl t, 'tl. ' '-o1e 1l is equalllJ uell settled tLrrcl tteetls ttt) testatertetlt al our hattds that cltliw rleclarattttrr <'rtrt basis lbr conui<:tiort' Ilttt Qt tlTe ;(lttte ttttv lontl tLe rlue cttre and caution must be exe'rcisec'L irt <':trtsulenrrq rueiqht tr, be git.tett to dyinq decloratron irt'tstrtac/t rt's tlere <'oultl be antl ttutnber ol ctrcu LstotLces tulrr<'lt ttttttl ttIlect tht' tn1th. ;l'his Court ut trlore thatt ore tlet:tstort lL;Les ('auttotte(l thc.t the coLttl.s lt\Ue ultucttls l() l)? otI tytarcl to see tltc.t tlrc d.tfuq cleclarattorr LU,r.; ttot lllt' restLLt ol eitlrcr tutoing or pronptttLq ot u oruxlttct rtl trttctclitctl r,rtt. ,ll i.s tlte cluttl of tlte courts to lD'd tltat tlu' rle<-eoset.' tr.,a.s irr (1 tit stlte ol nirrd to tttoke rlp LlL1rrtt1 rlec'lartut 'trr. lrr order Io satls/U nsell tlrut tlte t1<'r'er'Lst'tl ' 2023 SCC OnLrne ;C 1060 () r\ tt,(1s Dl a rleclorattott oPntrott. lit rnental condition the courts haue to to make the dtlinq look for the medical ()- Learnecl counsel alternativelv submits that the tu.o rlaughtcrs of the deceasecl are staving with the appellant and turther the incident happened after a heated exchangc of rvords in between the appellant and deceased and the offence mav iall under Section 3O4 - II of IPC. I O. The rncrdent happened at 09:OO P.M. and according to the witnesses. the cleceased u,as immediatelv shitted to Gandhi hospital. At the trme ot lornipg, neither any com;laint rvas file<l nor the statement ol-deceased was recorded. The case was a Medico-lcgal case. [)octor who hrst attended the deceased was not examined. When the deceased was undergorng treatment. the mother of deceased/PW6 u.ent there anrl met the deceased at I l:O0 A.M. In her cross examination. PW6 stated that she was with the deceased, u,hen the Sub-lnspeclor lvas recording her statement and u,as also present while deceased u,as undergoing treatment till deceased's last breath. I l. No reason is grven ;rs to r.r'hv the Police rvere not informerl till the ncxt dar.. 'l'l-rere is a clelav of nearlv l4 hours fretore the Police arnved an<l recorded the statement /Ex.P17. w /',' 'a., 'lhe stzrtement tl the Magrstrate was re<:orde<l ar 0l: I 5 I'. M , Admittedh,, the motlter/ PW6 was u,ith t hr tleceaserl throlrghor-rt, ac:'orcling to her statement in cross exermlr)auoil. l'). As alreacv narrated, the version given ir-r 1,,x.I'I7 rvhir:h rs statement plven to rhe l)olice is that the appellant rvzrs lravrng several illegal contacts and alscr ( ()ltrlrcl rvith Venkatamma irnrl he u,as also harassing tht, rle< ettse<[ lbr clon,rr,. Hou,ever, the rrersion ol the appellant havrnq ( onracls rvith several \vlmen ancl harassing fbr rlort,rt, is onrrssron'rrr the statement rrade belbre the Magrstrate. II is zrcparent tt-rirt the tleceasecl \vas trving to implicate anct mak<, irllt-gatior s against the,appellant in the statement made to rlre l)ohcc. 'l'herc is itnv irmount ol variation regarding tlre irppellant havir-rg relation rvith several r\romen as stated in tlte stzrrement to the Police rrncl conlining to one Venkatamma rvhcn the statement rl,as given bv the Magistrate. ln the backgrouncl ol there being no complaint to the Police tbr nearlt' '4 r,t,ars erntl the mother accompanving the deceasecl sinct, nt()rnlnq ()n '21 .O'2.'2O1?t, it appears that mother ha<l tutorecl the <leceaserl ro speak agairrst the appellant. As alreit(iv drscussert. tlte varlatlon in irot I-r the Dving Declarations req:rrclrng the x n appellant havrng relation with several wornen and demanding additional d ovgrv is a result of tutoring. I 3. PWs. I to 4 who rverc present r.vhen the rncident happenecl stated that the deceasecl \vas on flames and on seerng the deceased. the appellant u,ent there and put olf the Ilames. The onlv evidence is Dving Declaration and there is no other independent evidence as to u.,hat transprred on the date of incident. All the rvitnesses i.c.. PWs. 1 to 4 u,ho tvere named in the complaint and u,hose presence rvas stated have lurned hostile lo the prosecullon ('asc.

14. Though the Dying Der:laration can fbrm sole l;asrs for convrcting the accused, hou,ever, the surrounding circumstances should also be taken lnto consideration by the Court to rule out the possibilitv of tutoring and the statement made bv deceased being a result ol tutonng. The prosecution has not explained the delav in inlbrming the Police. Onlv after mother/PW6 arrived, thc Police u,ere informed. Thereafter, thc statement made bv the deceased reflects implication of the accused on the ground of having relatronship with several \vomen an<i also demanding dou,n,. The said statements made h1, rleceased cannot be relied on to sustain r:onviction slncc the statement o{ deceased to Police anrl Magtstrate are 7 9 not onh, contradictory but a result ol tutoring bv the mother ol deceased nh ch is apparent liom the lacts ol rhe (.ase.

15. For the a bresaid reasons, the conviction uncler Sectlon 302 ol' IPC, is herebv set aside. However, the ailegation regarding thc appellant having relatronship u,irtr Venkatamma is consistent. lt amounts r() c_-rueltr,. Accorciinglr', th:. conviction and punishment uncler Secrion :l9tt-A ol lPC is lrerebv sustained. Itr. Accordinglr.., the criminal appeal is parrh,-:rllowe(1. Since tt're appellant has aireadv undergone three vears ol [?igorous lmpris;onment lbr the oll'ence untler Ser:tror-r 4L)ti A ol tPC, the bail bonds against him shall stand cancelled. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JO T REGISTRAR tde TION OFFICER To, \ '1 . The Xlll Additicnal Distrrct and Sessions Judge-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. (with records, if any)

2. The lX Metropoli:an [\/agistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally. 3. The Superintend€rnt, Central Prison, Chanchalguda 4. The Station Hc use Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Ranga Reddy D istrict.

5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [C,UT]

6. One CC to Mr. P Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two CD Copies kam/gh s I HIGH COURT DATED:071011iJ25 ) \ 1 HE ST41 ( 01 liir-r 2025 . ,_ ..,.,1, r \r\ . .-- ( > ( JUDGMENT CRLA.No.796 of 2017 THE CRIMINAI. APPEAL IS PARTLY AI-LOWED 0gqto .21