The High Court · 2025

Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy Legal Aid Counsel Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : l 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE FTONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CBIMINAL APPEAL No.1093 ()F 2()17 JUDGMEIT'T: (,cer Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) 1. This ap1>eal is filed aggrieved by the judgmen.: dated 28.O7.2017 in S.C.No.2 44 of 2016, passed by the learned XV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally' convicting the appellant/ accused for the offence under Section \O2 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonn tent.

2. Hea:d \tr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the z ppellant, and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Addition a public Prosecutor appearing on be.ea'lf of responder Lt-S1-ate.

3. The appellant is convicted for murder of his wife' The allegation is that he has burnt his wife with kerosene on 24.O3.2O 5 irr the evening around 04.00 P M' The appellant is the hu sbald, who married the deceased three yea'rs prior to the inr rident. PWl, who is brother of deceased, on coming to knou' rbolrt the deceased receiving burn injuries, went to the hosp .tal and from there to Police Station ' Tht: ASI of 2 l l Police recorded the statement of pW1 on 25.03.2015 at 01.00 P.M

4. PWl narrated that his sister married the appellant th,ree years prior to the incident and they were blessed with one daughter, aged 2 years. The appellant was doing coolie work and the deceased was working as maid servant in some houses. Their marital life was proper and they were cordial PWl further mentioned in the complaint that, since few days, deceased was suffering with mental illness. However, in spite of illness, both the appellant and the deceased were staying together. Two days prior to the incident of burning, her health condition deteriorated. Her behavior was abnormal and she was not behaving or interacting with persons properly and she was also suffering from fever. On 24.O3.2OI5, at around

04.00 P.M., PW1 received information that deceased received burn injuries. PWI then went to the hospital and saw the deceased and from there, he went to the police Station and gave a statement. The said statement is Ex.pl. He also stated that due to mental illness, it appears that deceased set hre to herself ald committed suicide.

5. The concerned Magistrate received requisition for recording the dying declaration of the deceased. Magistrate_ l 3 PWS welrt to the hospital on 30.03'2015 and recorcled the dying declration of deceased at 11'00 A'M' In the sta'tement given to tre l{agistrate, the deceased stated that aprpeilant was suspi:ious about her and used to abuse her verbally' On the date o incident, he poured kerosene on her and 1it fire' In their hou;e, .ner husband, in-laws and their trvo year old child wert living together. After six days of giving statement, i.e., on 06.04.'2015, the deceased died.

6. Afte: tht: death of the deceased, 2"d statement w:ls glven by PW1. His statement was recorded at 10'00 A'M', on 07.O4.2O15 try the Police. In the said statement, PW1 narratecl ebcnrt the marriage ald stated that appel1;rnt was continurtt,sly harassing the deceased under the inflrLence of alcohol. r)n the date of incident, the father of a ppellant informerf PWI that deceased committed suicide' P\&'1 further stated tl Lat in the earlier statement to the Pc'lice on 25.03 .2O 5, .eis version that menta'l condition of cleceased was no: proper and is incorrect. After giving state ment to Police on 25 03.2015, when PW1 enquired with the d':ceased, deceased informed that the appellant poured kerosene on her and lit he r on fire. 4

7. On the basis of the statement made by pWl on 27.04.2015, the Section of law was altered to Section 302 of IPC

8., Inquest proceedings were conducted and body was sent for post mortem examination. According to post mortem examination, the cause of death was due to irfected burns.

9. Learned Sessions Judge having considered the evidence on record, convicted the appellalt under Section 3O2 of IpC for committing murder of his wife. 10 Learned counsel for the appellart would submit that there are two different versions. One that deceased was suffering with mental ill health and committed suicide, which version was after the incident happened. The second version after the death of the deceased, which is nearly 13 days after the incident, is that the appellant was addicted to alcohol and used to harass the deceased. In view of the discrepant statement of witnesses, benefrt of doubt has to be extended to the appellant. 1 1. On the other hand, learned Additional public Prosecutor would submit that adequate reasons were given as to why the statement was made by pW1 at the earliest point of time. The said earliest statement cannot be considered, in 5 view of tht, subsequent statement of PWl on 07.04.2015 i'e., after deat h c f the deceased. Having enquired rvi th the deceased rbor-Lt the appellant pouring kerosene on her, the statement u.,as made by PWl to the Police after the death of deceased. Fur[her, the deceased has given the statereent to the Magis.rate that the appellant burnt her. The sard dying declaratior r is r:orroborated by the evidence of PWs.1 to 3.

12. There are two versions given by the pros':cution witnesses. Initially, on 25.03.2015, PW1 stated before the Poiice thar the deceased was suffering from mental il1rress for some timr anrl she committed suicide. Thereafter, P\V1 and others we re admittedly attending to the deceased in the hospital ti.1 her death. Dying declaration was recorded by the Magistratt orL 30.03.20I5, which is six days af1.er the incident. ln the said dying declaration, deceased marle bald allegationr that appellant burnt her after pouring kerot;ene on her and w rs srrspecting her.

13. In tlLe b,rck-ground of PWs. L to 3 and others admitting that they wero constantly going to the hospital, therr: arises any a-rnou nt cf doubt regarding the correctness of staLtement made by tee deceased before the Magistrate. PW1 stated that after 'the incident, when the deceased was conscious, he 6 enquired with her and she informed that appellant poured kerosene on her. However, the date on which the deceased informed him was not stated by pWf . It is not clear as to why PW1 waited for 13 days till the deceased died in the hospital to again make a statement contrary to what was stated at the earliest point of time.

74. As seen from the evidence of pWs.l, 2,3 and, others, none specifically stated regarding the strained relation in between the deceased and the appellant. A bald allegation is made that appellant used to harass the deceased under the influence of alcohol and abuse her.

15. PWs. 1, 2 and 3 stated about the appellant being addicted to alcohol arrd harassing the deceased.

16. The appellant and the deceased were married for nearly 3 years, prior to the incident. The bald allegation that the appellant used to harass the deceased would not suffice since not a single instance is specifically stated by pWs.1 to 3 about arry kind of harassment or type of harassment that was meted out by the deceased. Inconsistent and contradictory statements were made by witnesses, one at the earliest point of time immediately after the incident, and another after the deati of deceased. Further, statement made by the deceased I : t r,. '7 to the Magrstrate was nearly 6 days after incident and at all times, P'vtr'l arcl others were attending to the deceased in the hospital, a: arlnitted by them' It is not known as to why the Police did ttot tnake ary effort to record the statement of the deceased fr r nearlY 13 daYs.

17. In tt e present facts of the case, the version of the deceased and zJso PWs.1 to 3 cannot be relied on' In the said circumstzrr ce s, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant'

18. Acc,o -din 31y, criminal Appeal is allowed and the sentence rmd conviction imposed against the appel'ant in judgment deted 28.07-2017 in S'C'No'244 of 2016 is hereby se' aside. Since the appellarlt is in jail, he shall be other <:as,e' -, release d for th'rith_, rl 9:::Tg=."*:1. - - ---sdrclt Mo".i5fiPuJ[ty'18xfl //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The XV Adi itional Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District' Kukatpally at tviivrdr.r;i h 't,':ords if anY) The XIX lile troprrlitan Magistrate' Cyberabad at Kukatpally ruu;,::''l:;,"ff :x?,?'fi if",oJflhun,*'':il;;::ff .::H;-"', The superinten,jent, cherraplrav Prison, Rr"s"tt"fgve"DJlrtl'fil ,.r"nn", 1 The Statiorr House Officer, KPHB PS' Hyderabad District TwoCCstlthePublicProsecutor'HighCourtfortheStateoflelangana' Hyderabac [OL T] One CC tc Sri (fudi Madhusudhan Reddy' Legal Aid Counsel IOPUCI Two CD C rPier; I To, I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 / I HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 JUDGMENT' CRLA.No.1tl93 of 2017 i:) i-' \.. -- \i ALLOWING THE CRLA \.- t ,"' 01 [PP. 7[25 6'( 7 O $ * D Eso, t\) , -- i-\ \t' a, :-:-"