The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...Respondents lA NO:2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed in S.C-No.111 of 2017 Dt.09/10/201 I by the file of the Vl Additional Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani by granting bail to the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 430 (1) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence dated 09.10.2019 passed in S.C. No. 111 of 2017 on the file of the Vl Additional Sessions Judge Godavarikhani, by enlarge the Petitioner on bail during the pendency of the Crl.A.No.467 of 2020 in the interest of Justice and fair play. Counsel for the Appellant :Ms. H SEETHA DEVI ( Legal aid counsel) Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUC.OPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.467 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) This Criminal Appeal is frled by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.1O.2OL9, in C.C.No.11l of 2017, on the file of the VI Additionat Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of O8/O9.O9.2014, the appellalt poured kerosene on Suguna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceasedJ and set her on fire, which resulted. in 7 O%o of burns to the deceased. Later, the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Mahadevpur, for the pu{pose of treatment. 2

4. The police gave a requisition to the learned Magistrate/PW.2O for recording the dying declaration of the deceased. PW.20 went to the hospital around 04. 17 A.M. and met the patient. The duty Doctor/PW. 18 .was also present and she endorsed that;'the patient is conscious, coherent, and in a fit state of mind to give her statement". Preliminary questions were asked by PW.2O. The answer gtven by the deceased in the statement made to the Magistrate when asked about cause of her injuries is narrated as follows: 'Three gears pior mg husbond died. Thereafter, I fell in loue u.tith Sammaiah. He wo.s marri.ed earlier, hotueuer, he did not haue children. He aLso loued me and he used to come to our house in the night. We do not houe children together- I haue children from mg first husband. Yesterdaq night at O9.OO P.M. he came to our house, fought u.tith me stoting that I u.tas mouing around uith seueral other persons. I toll him that I uas not meuing with anyone. Thereofter, he poured kerosene on rte and set fire. Mg cltildren were sleeping at that time and to extingui.sh fire, I rolled on the floor. After ertingui.shittg ftre, mg brother also namelg Sammaia\ liuing near mg house, brought n1e to the hospital. Heaing mg shouts neighbors al.so cam.e there. Theg informed the incid-ent to mg brother. There is no marriage in betlueen me ond- Samma.ia.h. Sammaiah suspected m-e and poured kerosene on ffte and fled from the 3 house. He is still in the uillage. He i.s the reason for the bunts that I receiued. This b atl I haue to sag." 5: After the said statement of the deceased, the duty Doctor again certified that the patient is "conscious, coherent, and in a fit state of mind to give the statement". After the endorsement of the Doctor, Pw.2O/Magistrate also endorsed that there was no other person present when the recordings took place, except the duty Doctor and herself.

6. The deceased was treated by PW. 16, and according to PW. 16, the deceased received 7O%o burns, and IV fluids, altibiotics, ald dressing were given for her burn injuries. Her general condition was poor. During the treatment, she died on

1.a.l}.2}74 . According to PW. 16, the deceased infbrmed that she sustained burns due to pouring of kerosene and being set on fire by her lover Sammaiah.

7. The deceased died on LB.lO.2Ol4. Initially, the complaint was filed on 09.09.2014 by PW. 1, who is the mother of the deceased. The crime was registered for the offence under Section 3O7 of IPC, however, after the death of the deceased, Section of larv was altered to Section 302 of IPC 4 B. The learned Sessions Judge found favor with the version of the prosecution that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased, which was premeditated and intentional. Mainly piacing reliance on the dying declaration, the evidence of the minor son-PW.13, and also other circumstantial evidence about the frequent quarrels between the appellant and the deceased, the conviction was recorded.

9. The learned Legal-Aid Counsel for the appellant would submit that a fa-lse case has been filed against the appeliant. The dying deciaration cannot be relied upon since it is a false statement. Since there are no eye-witnesses to the incident, and in the absence of any eye-witnesses to corroborate the version ofthe deceased, the conviction has to be set aside.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there was no reason as to why the deceased would speak against the appellalt. The incident happened on the intervening night of OB/O9.O9.2O14, and irnmediately, the complaint was lodged with the police by the mother of the deceased. There is abundant evidence on record to substantiate i i 5 that it was the appellant who burnt the deceased, resulting in her death.

11. The incident happened on OS/O}.Og.2Ol4. It was informed by the deceased that after the death of her husbald, she started living with the appellant. In fact, the appeliant was earlier married, and he used to visit her house frequently and stay with her. The said live_in relationship between the appellant ald the deceased was spoken about by pWs.l, 2,3, 4, and,S. A11 the witnesses have spoken about the illegal intimacy between the deceased and the appellant, and that the appellant was harassing her on the ground that she was having affairs with other persons.

12. All the witnesses have stated that the deceased and the appellant were in a live-in relationship and there were frequent quarrels between them. According to the defence taken by the appellant, the deceased committed suicide. However, as seen from the averments in the complaint, and also the dying declaration of the deceased, it is clearly indicated that it was the appellant who poured kerosene and set her on fire. No evidence is adduced by the appellant to disprove his presence, l 6 since the witnesses have specifically spoken about his presence, when the incident happened. Moreover, the same was also stated by the deceased in the dying declaration. The deceased died nearly 41 days after the ineident. The death happened while she was undergoing the treatment. It was on account of the complications associated with the burns that the deceased received on the date ofthe incident.

13. In the said circumstances, though the intention of the appellant is clear to commit the murder, however, in view of the deceased's death occurring 41 days after the date of incident on account of the complications resulting from the burns, and not a direct result of the burns received on the date of incident, we deem it appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 307 of IPC while setting aside the conviction under Section 302 of IPC.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 09.1O.2O79 in C.C.No.1ll of 2017, on the Ille of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani. However, the appellant is found guilty for the offence under 1 Section 3O7 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmen t for a period of ten (1O) years. Misceilaneous Petitions pending, if any, shal1 stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR fr\. -- -*--'/ usecrroru oFFrcER I ] 1 , 1. The Vl Additional Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani(With records, if any) 2. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Manthani(With records, if any) 3. The Inspector of Police, Manthani Police Station, Koyyur 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

6. One CC to tt/ls H SEETHA DEVI, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies ADK/gh +y \ I I t I i HIGH COUR'T DATED:2010312025 t -a., ) JUDGMENT CRLA.No.46',t of 2020 -.- \ i.: -' ' 'i l: \, \ * 30 APn 206 7 L).\ t OI .s pnr cB t PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA @ IY&6