The High Court · 2025

The state of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Judicature at Hyderabad, rorihe Stat6 of ielangana and Andhra Pradesh' ...RespondenUComPIainant Counsel for the Appellant: Sri C. Sharan Reddy Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Gourt delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER HON'BLE SRI JT STICE ANIL KUII,IAR JT KAN'TI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.16O8 OF 2018 JUDGMENTz (Per Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surender) 1. The appellant was convicted under Section 3O2 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, vitle judgment in S.C.No.323 of 2016, dated 09.04.2018, passed by the III Additiona-t Sessions Judge at Jagtial. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased, namely-Fathima, was married to the appellant. The marriage of the deceased with the appellant was performed on 2:3.03.20O0. They had two sons, i.e., P.W.3 and another Mohd.Khasi.m Sulthan. The appellant was addicted to a-lcohol and used to harerss the deceased mentally and physica-lly. Unable to bear the hat'assment of the deceased, complaint was also filed with the police. The police counseled the appellant and the deceased, according to P.W. 1- brother of the deceased.

3. The incident happened on 13.06.2015, at 1.30 p.m, wherein, the deceased received burn injuries and she wa-s taken to the .. -.t - 2 l l' hospital. Initially, she was treated by D.W. l/Doctor. Thereafter ,a- requisition was given to the Magistrate/P.W.14 to record dying declaration of the deceased. P.W.i4 went to the h6spital around

3.00 p.m on 13.06.2015. Having asked preliminar5r questions, learned Magistrate recorded satisfaction about the mental capability of the deceased to give statement. The specific question and answer about the incident, are translated and extracted below. Question: Hout did Aou receiue burninjuries? Ansu.ter: I came to mg house in Chandrapur Colony from mg mother's house, around 12.OO p.m today. Mg husband, Md.Sulthan tortured me. He asked me to die and asked me to do prostitutton. He uas dinking, abusing and poureld'kerosene on to me to kill me and set fire. He was also taking uideo. Mg sister-in-laut, husband abused me. Anjamma, utho is mg neighbor also came there and beat me. One Vaishga person and his uife Pushpa questioned as to what uould lnppened if the appellant dinks. Mg mother- in-law is a dangerous person. Md.Abbas abused me by calling me as prostitute. Khaja Pasha, Osman and all of them asked mg husband to kill me. Khaja Pasha, Osman are fiends of mg husband. Mg sister-in-laut, Qamar also used to torture me. Fiends used to plag cards( name of 3 Vaishga person and the name of the sister-in-lau.t could not be stated).

4. The evidence of P.Ws.l and 2 who are brothers of the deceased, shows that the deceased was harassed and abused physically and mentally. Vague and bald allegations are leveled by P.Ws.1 and 2 about harassment against the deceased. P.W.3 is the son of the deceased, who was aged around [] years. In his statement, P.W.3 narrated that, on the date of the incident, when he and his elder brother/Md.Khasim Sulthan, asked the deceased to serve food, the appeilant came home in the meantime. The deceased went inside, poured kerosene and set herself on fire. The prosecution did not treat P.W.3 as hostile. P.W..3 was not even cross-examined regarding his version that the deceased committed suicide.

5. In defence, appellant examined D.W. 1, who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in the hospital, where the deceased was taken immediately after she received burn injuries. He stated that, on

13.06.2015 at 2.OO p.m, the deceased was brought to the hospital. On enquiry, the deceased stated that she committed suicide and first aid was given. During cross-examination, nothing was elicited 4 to discredit the evidence of D.W. 1. However, in the cross- examination, D.W. 1 admitted that without seeing the original of Ex.P26, the accident register, he cannot specifically say as to what was mentioned in Ex.P26 register.

6. The evidence of P.W.7, who is the Doctor, gains signihcance. He is the Doctor, who examined the appellant and found burns on the hands, front of abdomen, left thigh and face of the appellant. The appellant took treatment from 13.06.2015 to 07.O7.2015, and he was discharged on 07.O7.2015.

7. The prosecution has not explained as to how the appellant received burn injuries. If at all, the appellant had burnt the deceased, the question of him receiving burns on his hands, abdomen, thigh, and face appears to be improbable. It can be safely concluded that while trying to extinguish flames of the deceased, the appellant received burns. P.W.3 admitted during his cross- examination that the appellant extinguished the flames on the deceased and he received burns in the process. The said admissions of P.W.3 were not disputed by the prosecution. 5

8. The only evidence, which the trial Court relied on to ionvict the appellant for the offence of murder, is the dying declaration of the deceased. As seen from the extract of dying cleclaration, it is clear that the deceased was not in a ht state ol' mind and not coherent, to speak about the incident. In the dying declaration, she has stated about the neighbors, one Vyshya person, friend of the deceased, and she has named nearly five persons w.ho were present in the house when the incident happened. The statement reflects that the deceased was harlucinating, which is a r-esurt of severe burns and pain. 9- The said statement of the deceased has to be rooked into by the court to assess whether what was stated by the deceased was given in a fit state of mind. In the background of there being specific evidence of P.w.3 and D.w. 1 that the deceased informed them that she poured kerosene on herself and lit rrre to herself, the version given by the deceased in her dying declaration about the complicit5r of appellant can only be reiied on when there is corroboration to the said version. As already discussed, the narration of the deceased to the learned Magistrate, implicating several persons, €r.ppears to be a I 6 result of the pain and tramma she was in. Though, she stated abou Vaishya person a,d sister-in-law, she was not in a position to even name them, as observed by the learned Magistrate in the statement itself. It is not the case of prosecution that any of the persons mentioned in the dying declaration were prese.nt, when the incident happened.

10. The statement made by the decei-sed cannot form sole basis, in the present facts of the case, to infer that it was the appellant, who had burnt the deceased and that the death was homicidal. As already discussed, the prosecution did not even declare p.W.3 as hostile, who had stated about the deceased committing suicide. Further, the.prosecution has also not explained the burns that were received by the appellant, a,d his hospitalization. In view of the above discussion, benelit of doubt is extend.ed to the appellant.

11. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in S.C.No.323 of 2016, dated O9.O4.2OI8, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 7

12. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous, applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA J INT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// s CTION OFFICER To

1. The lll Additional Sessions Judge at Jagtial. (with records, if any) 2- The lAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar' 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Mamnoor Village,Warangal District- 4. The Station House Officer, Karimnagar Rural Police Station, Karimnagar District.

5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sitate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri C. Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Kam/ph,Q HIGH COURT i DATED:0610312025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1608 of 2018 I .tHE sr4 14. q 10 JUlr zm 9t-...

6. ,;/ / ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \e *n"A &^"