Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL Ifi,IMAR JUXANTI CRIMIN AL APPEAL No.877 OF 2OL7 JIIDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) The appellant is before this Court questioning the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment. ihe appellant was in a live-in relationship with the deceased

2. namely J.Vijayalaxmi and they were residing at Saraswathi Nagar, Siddipet. The incident happened on O3.O2.2014 at about 7:00 p.m. when the appellant and the deceased quarreled with each other. The appellant allegedly questioned the deceased with whom she slept and picked up quarrel with her. Thereafter, he poured Kerosene on her and lit her on fire with an intent to kill her. The deceased was taken to the hospital for treatment.

3. The duty doctor-PW.l2 questioned the deceased at 12.30 A.M. and recordecl her answers. The relevant portion of Ex.Pl1 case sheet is extracted; 2 "DI.O4.O2.2O14 at 12.30 A.M. Patient conscious, coherent and co-operative regarding with mental condition. 1) What is your name? Ans: Vijayalakshmi 2) What is your age? Ans: 28 years 3) What is your husband's name? Ans: Yadagiri. 4) What is your native place? Ans: Dubbaka is my native Place. 5) Do you have sons? Ans: Yes. I have two sons. 6) Give their names. Ans: Name of elder son is Rakesh, 12 years old. Name of yournger son is Rajanikanth, l0 years old. 7) What happened to you? Ans: My husband being suspicious that I am roaming with some men, have poured Kerosene on my body and set hre during night." 4 . Thereafter, PW. 1 1 -S.l of Police went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased at 2.OO A.M. The deceased stated as follows; 3 'Presently, I am residing in Saraswathi Nagar colony, Siddipet. Since my hrst husband Bhumaiah died, I am residing with my two children here. My elder son and younger son are studying in Government Hostel, near Gandhi Statue in Siddipeta. Since last 4 years I have been acquainted with on Yadagiri, Caste: Vadera and I am in live-in relation with him. My husband yadagiri is suspicious of my character. Since few days he is thinking that I have illegal intimacy with others ald harassing me. On 03.O2.2014 morning I left for Kamareddy on work and returned to Sidclipet in the evening. Since there was no rice in the house for cooking, Yadagiri brought 4 roties and each one of us had two roties. Night at about 11.30 p.m., yadagiri picked up quarrel questioning me as to with whom I spent the day and he also said that he would kill me by all means. Then he brought Kerosene tin from the house and poured kerosene on my body and set fire. I tried to catch him but he fled. Then I was brought by 10g Ambulance here for treatment. It is true that yadagiri with an intention to kill me, poured kerosene and set fire to me. My body was completely burnt. My statement was recorded and read over to me. Since I found it to be correct, I have put my LTI below."

5. The Magistrate-PW.S having received requisition from Siddipet Police recorded the Dying Declaration of the deceased in between 4

1.4O A.M. ar,.d 2.X A.M. The stater ent Ex.PS recorded by Magistrate is extracted; 'To ascertain the mental condition of the injured person, I have put the following preliminar5r questions to her. 1) What is your name? Ans: Vijayalakshmi. 2) What is the name of your husband? Ans: Yadagiri. 3) What is your native place? Ans: Dubbaka, in Sicldipeta Mandal is my native place. 4) Where are you now? Ans: I am in Saraswathinagar 5) Do you know who I am? Ans: On your saying I came to know that your are Magistrate. 6) I came to record you Declaration? Ans: I can give On considering the above answers, I am satis{ied that the injured person is conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give statemenl. 5 7) What happened? Ans: To-day i.e. on O3.O2.2OI4, evening at 7.OO p.m., I returned home. After some time, my husband with whom I have live-in relation viz., Danala Yadagiri s/o.Nampally, native of Timmareddypalli Nagar, Komaravalli, near Komaravalli came. home. He quarreled with me for not cooking the meal. Then Yadagiri went out and brought four chapathies and each of us had two chapathies. After some time he picked up quarrel with me questioning as to with whom did I go to Nizamabad and he abused me. He brought Kerosene tin from the house and poured on my body and set fire with match stick to me and fled. Thereafter our neighbours informed the Police and I was brought to the government Hospital by 108 Ambulance. 8) Do you want to say anything more? Ans: Nothing."

6. On the basis of the statement-Ex.P9 recorded by S.l of Police, Vittal-PW. 11, crlme was registered under Section 307 of Indian Penal code and investigation commenced. The <lece:rsed died at

10.45 A.M. on 04.O2.2O14. The section of law was altered to 3O2 of Indian Penal Code. After concluding investigation charge sheet was filed for the said offence under Section 3O2 of [ndian Penal Code. 6

7. The learned Sessions Judge relying mainly on the dying declaration placed on record by the prosecution, convicted the appellant.

8. l,earned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there are three dilferent Dying Declarations which are contradicting with one another. The medical record was also tampered. PW. l2 admitted that there was correction in MLC numkr and further the percentage of burns was initially written as 6O%- 8Oo/o and again recorded as 70%-80%. The burns that were received by the deceased were suicidal and not homicidal. In fact, the narration of PW.4, would go to show that the appellant did not allow the deceased to enter into the house however, she forcibly entered into the house. PW.5, was also present. However, they did not speak about the presence of the appeltant at the scene. The deceased was more healthJ than the appellant, as such, the question of appellant stopping her from entering into the house does not arise. It is highly improbable that PW.B rvould have recorded the statement of the deceased at 2.OO A.M. rvhen it was specifically admitted by the Magistrate that the statement was recorded in between 1.40 A.M. to 7

2.2O A.M. A false case was filed against the appellant though the deceased conrmitted suicide

9. l,earnecl Counsel relied on the Judgment of the Honourable lt. State of Tamilnadu t wherein it is Supreme Court in P.Manl held as follows; u74. Indisputablg conuiction can be recorded on the basis of the dging declaration alone but therefor the same must be uholly reliable. In a cose where suspicion can be raised as regards the coffectness of the dging declaration, the court before conuicting an acased on the basts thereof utould look for some corroboratiue euidence. Suspicion, it is tite, is no substilute for proof. If euidence brought on record. suggests that such dging declaration does not reueal the entire truth" it may be considered only as a piece of euidence in uLhich euent conviction maA not be rested onlg on the basis thereof. The question as to uhether a dging declaration is of impeccable character uottld depend upon seueral factors; phAsical and mental condition of the deceased is one of then. In this case the circLtmstances uthich haue been brought on record clearly point out tLnt uhat migLn haue been slated in th.e dying declaration may not be correct. If the deceased had been nurtuing o grudge against her husband for a long time, she uhile committing suicide lrcrself mag try to implicate him so as to make his lik miserable. In tle present case uthere the eppellant hc.s been chorged under Section 3O2 of the Penal Code, the presumption in terms of Section 113-A of the Euidence Act is not I (1006) I Sulrenre ( oun Cases l6l 8 a vailable. In the absence of such a presumption, the conuiction and sentence of the accused must be based on cogent and reliable euidence brought on record- by the proseantion. In this case, tue find tlnt tle euidenes are not such uthich point out onlg to the guilt of the acqtsed.

75. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is a fit case where the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. He shall be released. forthwith if not required in ang other case. The impugned judgments are set aside. The appeal is accord.ingly alloued."

10. The counsel also relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in lrJan alio,s No,krr u. State of tJttor pradeshz wherein it is held as follows;

462. There is no hard and fast rule for determining when a dging declaration should be accepted.; the duttt of the Court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fullg conuinced of the truthfutness of the same. Certain factors below reproduced can be considered to determine the same, houteuer, they uill onlg affect the ueight of the dging declaratinn and not its admissibilitg:- (i) Whether the person making the statement uas in expectation of death? (ii) Whether the dying declaration utas made at the earliest opportunitg? 'RuIe of First Oppodunitg" 'z2023 scc Online SC 1060 9 (iii) Whether there is ang reasonable suspicion to belieue the dying declaration uas put in tle mouth of the dAinq person? (iu) Whetlrcr the dging declaration was o product of prompting, tutoing ctr leading at tLLe instance of police or anll interested. party? (u) Whether the statement uas not record.ed. properlg? (ui) Whether, the dying declarant lad. opportunitg to ctearlg obserue tlrc incident? (uii) Whether, the dging declaration hr:Ls been consistent throughout? (uiii) Whether, the dyirg declaratton in itsetf js a mantfe stat ion/ fiction of tle dging person,s imagination of uthat he thinks transpired? (ix) Whether, the dAing declaration uas itself uoluntarg? (x) In case of multiple dging declarations, whether, the first one inspires tntth and consistent with the other d.ging d_eclaration? (xi) Whether, as per th.e injuries, it uould_ haue been impossible for the deceased to make a dgtng declaration? 63. It is the dutg of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused begond. the reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt nntst ahuags go in fawur of the accused-. It is ttue that dging decloration ts a substantiue piece of euidence to be relied on prouided it is proued that ttrc same LUas uoluntar!! and lruthful ancl the uictim uas in a fit state of mind. /t as ju.sr not enoughfor the court to sag that the dging d"eclaration is reliable as the accused is named in the d.ging declaratiorL as the n-ssailanl. '' 10

11. Learned counsel further relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in State of Gujarat u. Jagrajbhai punjabhai Varue wherein it held as follows; n 75. The courts below ha-ue to be extremelg careful uhen theg deal with a dging declaration as the maker thereof is not auailable for th.e cross-examination tahich poses a great difficultg to tle accused person. A mechanical approach in retging upon a dying declaration just because it is there is extremely d.angerous. The court hrzs to examine a dging declaration scrupulouslg with a microscopic ege to find out uhether the dying declaration is uoluntary, truth{ul, made in a conscious state of mind, and u.tithout being influenced bA the relatiues present or by the inuestigating agencA who mag be interested in the success of inuestigation or uthich mag be negligent while recording the d.Aing d.eclaration. 76. In the case on hand, there are tu)o sefs o/ euidence, one is the statement/ declaration made before the police officer and the Executiue Magi-strate and the other is the oral dying decLaration made bg the deceased before her father who utas examined as PW 1. On a careful scruting of the materials on record, it cannot be said that there uere contradictions in the statements made before the police officer and the Exeantiue Magistrate as to the role of the resg>ondent herein in the ammission of the offence and in such circumstances, one set of euidence uthich is more consistent and. reliable, which in tlle present case being one in fauour of the r (zot6) t+ Supreme Court Cases l5l 11 respond?nt herein, requires to be accepted and. conuiction courd_ not be placed on the sole testimong of pW 1."

12. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme c.rrrt in state of punjab o. paroeen l{umar+ wherein it is held as follorvs; o7O. While appreciating the credibilitg of the euid,ence produced. before thc court, the court must uieu the euid.ence as a whole and come to a conclusion as lo its genuineness and truthfulne.ss. Ihe mere fact thot two different uersions are giuen but one name is common in both of them cannot be a ground. for conuicting the named person. The court must be sattsfied. that the dying declaratron is truthful. If there are two dying d.eclarations giuing ttuo diffe rent uersions, a serious d.oubt is created about the truthfulness of the dging declarations. It mag be that if there was ana othet reriable euidence on record., this court could haue consideretl such corroboratiue euidence to test the truthfulness of the dyinq clecLarations. The two dging d.ectarations, hou.rcuer, in the instent case by themselues and ther<t is no other reliable e'uidence record bg reference to tuhich their truthfuln<,:.s can be tested. It is welt settled. that one piece of unreliable: etidence cannot be used to corroborate another piece of unreliablc cuidence_ The High Court while consid.eing the euidence on record has ightlg applied. the principles laid doutn bg this Court in 'thurukanni pompiah u. State of Mgsore IAIR tg6l SC 9.39 ( t 965) 2 Cri Lt 311 and Khutshal Rao u. State of Bombay 1l9-58 SCR 552 : 1958 Cri Lt 106l ." stand- | (:005) 9 Suprcrn. ( ('Lrn (.rses 769 12

13. Learned Counsel also relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Mo.khan Singh u. The State of Horryanas, wherein it is held as follows; '2O. The first dging declaration (Ext. DO/C) is recorded bg Ms Vani Gopal Sharma (DW 1). A pentsal of the said_ would reueal that prtor to recording the statement of deceased. Manjit Kaur, Dr Sobti (PW 1) Lwd examined as to tahether she ttas in a fit state of mind and conscrbus to make the statement. After certiftcation, Ms Vani Gopal Sharma (DW 1) got LLerself satisfied. as to tahether d.eceased Manjit Kaur utas uoluntarilg making the statement or not and thereafter, recorded her statement. The said dying d-eclaration (Ext. DO/C) is aLso endorsed bg Dr Sobti (pW 1) uith the remarks that deceased_ Manjit Kaur rzas conscious throughout while making statement. Ms Vani Gopal Sharma (DW t) has atso deposed that euen afr.er making the statement, she conJirmed from the deceased as to uthether tLe statement uas uolunlaily made by her. 27. As against this, as far as th.e second dging declaration (Ext. PE) uhich was Kanchan Nariala. u)as recorded uithout there being examination bg a doctor with regard to the fitness of the deceased Manjit Kaur to make the statemenr. Though the statement is record.ed. in LNJ7 Hospitat and_ thouqh doctors were auailable, Ms Kanchan Nariala (pW 6) did not find. it necessarA to get the medical condition of the deceased examined recorded bg another Judiciat Magistrate (PW 6) afier 3 dcgs is concemed, ir Ms 'l()tt I ivc t.a* (SC) 677=(202j) l3 SCC 760 13 from the doctors auailable in the Lrcspital. It is further to be noted. thnt Ms Kanchan Nariola (pW 6) herself has ad.mitted that Bhan singh (Pw 13) ond Kamlesh Kaur (pw 11), father and. sister of deceasecl Manjit Kaur were present in the hospital. Tlrc possibilitg of tte second d_ging declaration (Drt. pE) being giuen afier tutoring bg her rel.atiues cannot therefore be ruled. out."

74. l,earne<l Counsel relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Courr in Amol Singh u. State of Madhga prad,esha wherein it is ireld that;

473. Lau, relating to appreciation of euidence in the form of more than one d.11ing declaration is uell settled.. Accordingtg, it is not the pluralitg of the dying d_eclarations but the reliabilitg thereof that adds Lueight to the prosecation case. If a d_ging declaration is found to be uoluntary, reliable ond. made in fit mental condition, it can be relied Ltpon without ang conoboration. The statement should be consistent throughout. If the d_eceased_ had- seueral opportunities of rnaking such d.ging d.eclarations, that is to sag, if th.ere are more than one dging declaration theg should. be consislent. (See Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam u. State of A.P. ft1993) 2 SCC 684 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 655l ) Houeuer, if some inconsistencies are noticed. between one dging d.eclaration qnd the other, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namelg, ulrcther they are mateial or not. While scrutinising the contents o.f t,aious dqing declarations, in such a situation, the u (ZOOA) S Suprenk (irurt ( .lic. lrrs 1,4 court has to examine the same in the surrounding facts and circumstanes. " light of the uanous

15. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor would submit that the statement of the deceased in a, the three statements made by her was consistent that it is the apperlant who poured Kerosene on her and lit her on fire. In fact, the appellant received burn injuries and he was treated for burns. Ex.pg is the medical certificate issued along with Out-Patient ticket of appellant by A.p.Vaidya Vidhana Pari s had. l6' The appellant was arrested on 15.02.2014 and his confession was recorded. The police found that he suffered burn injuries for which reason he was sent to the hospital for treatment and accordingly Ex-pg was issued which is certificate of burns received by the appellant.

17. In the present case there are three statements which are made by the deceased hrstly, when she was taken to the hospital, pW. 12 questioned her the reason for burns. The deceased stated that the 15 appellant suspected her that she was roaming with someone and poured Kerosene on her and set her on fire. 18. In the statement recorded by the S.I. of police and also the learned Magistrate, the deceased narrated that appellant went home and questioned her about food. Since there was no rice, appellant went out, brought four ,rotis' and both of them ate and slept. At about 11.30 p.m., there was a quarrel in between them for which reason the appellant went inside the house, brought Kerosene tin, poured it on her and rit her on fire. The statement of the victim insofar as there being quarrel in between appellant and herself is consistently stated in a[ the three Dying Declarations. Further, the deceased also specifically stated that the appellant had poured Kerosene on her and lit her on hre. The reason given is that there was a quarrel in between them since the appellant suspected the deceased of moving with someone else. The deceased, not giving a detailed version to the doctor rvhen examined at the first instance is of no consequence. Reasons are given by the deceased in ttrc statement ma<Ie to the S.l. of police and also to the Magistrate. There being no detailed narration to the doctor, would not mean that her statement contradicts the subsequent statements made to the porice 16 and Magistrate. The version of the appellant entering into a quarrel with deceased, pouring Kerosene on her and litting fire is consistent in all the three statements.

19. The argument of the learned counsel that there were corrections insofar as the percentage of burns, will not make any difrerence' The case is that the deceased received burns. Initialy, it was stated that the burns were 60-g00/o and later corrected as 70- 8o%' The said correction is of no consequence. It is not in dispute that the deceased died ofburns.

20. Immediately after the incident, the appellant absconded. He was caught ten days thereafter and his right hand was burnt. No explanation is given as to how he received burn injuries. The absence of any explanation regarding the burn injury on his right hand, the prosecution version that the appe[ant was present when the incident happened is strengthened.

21. Though, PWs.4 and 5 stated that they saw the deceased come out of the house in flames and also informed them that she was set on fire by the appelrant, however, both pws.4 and 5 did not state about the appellant being present. The evidence of pws.4 and s wi not in any manner help the case of the appellant. It is the case of the 77 prosecution that the appellant set her on lire and fled. As already discussed, the appellant also received burns on his right hand which was not explained. The argument of the learned counsel that ttre burns received by deceased were suicidal, cannot be accepted in view of the overwhelming evidence available.

22. The incident happened when there was a quarrel in between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant suspected the deceased of having affair with someone else and questioned as to with whom she went to Nizamabad. During the said fight, ttre appellant poured Kerosene on her and set her on fire. 23. Exception 4 of Section 3OO of Indian penal Code reads as follows; 'Etcception 4 --curpable homicide is not murder if it is committed tuithout premeditation in a sud.den fiqht in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender.s Lauing taken undue aduantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. - From the facts of the present case, it is evident that the act of setting the deceased on fire was result of a quarrel and during heated arguments in between them. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 of Indian penal Code is set aside. However the

24. under Section 3O4_II of Indian penal seven years imprisonment. Code and 18 appellant is convicted sentenced to undergo 25. Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. 26. Since the appellant is on bail, the conc to cause appearance of the appelrant and out the remaining period of 5sn1sn... court is directed I him to prison to serve ""rr,"*"0 IITRUECOPYII A.v.s.s.c.s.M. SAR MA JOtNT REGIST RAR 0 SECTON OFFICER ,B:rYi:#iHonal District and sessions Judse, siddipet, Medak District (with t"::;:::#:l The Judicial Magistrate of rhe station n"*" oo*, The Superintendent, Centr ffi:l ;# Iy.".:"?: j1sfi ri;;,;";ff .i;,!il"liI[1r;aneaovois,ric, t,r rne state of relangana, one cc to sri Avadesh Naravan "-^^^, ^", Two cD copies 'ayan Sanghi' Advocate toPuc; ' To, 1 2

7. VNgh Yv HIGH COURT DATED:28 rc112025 JUDGMENT tr,E S 14 r€: /:,.-i 1g FtB ?0ffi q z I I CRLA.No.877 ot 2017 /.\.-tFqb PARLY ALLOWNG THE CRLA \o .dnN YY {\*F