I-earned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthant, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing

The State of Telangana, Through lnspector of Police P.S Kowtala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad, for the State of Telarigana & for the State Andhra Pradesh. ...RespondenUComplainant Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Y. Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 1 THE HONOURABI,E SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1282 OF 20L7 JUDGMENTi (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.surenden

1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved bythe judgment dated17.O4.2Ol7,in S.C.No.272 of 2013, on the ltle of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Asifabad. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC.

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

3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased, namely Sunita, were married 1O years prior to the incident.. They were having two sons. After 7 or 8 years of marriage, the appellant started harassing the deceased by consuming gudumba on a daily basis. P.W.3, who is the brother, and P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, have stated about the disputes between the spouses. The incident happened on 31.08.2012 at 9:3O p.m. A quarrel took place in between the deceased and the appellant. The appellant 2 was in a drunken condition, then a quarrel took place in respect of consumption of alcohol by the appellant. During the quarrel, appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to the deceased. On receiving information, P.W. 1 and P.W.3 went to the Government Hospital, Sirpur Town. Initial treatment was given by the Doctor in the hospital- Requisition was given to the concerned Magistrate to record the dying declaration. The requisition was received by the jurisdictional Magistrate /P.W.13 on 01.09.2012 at 5:30 a.m. Learned Magistrate recorded the dying declaration on

4. Ol.O9.2Ol2 around 6 a.m. The Doctor opined that the patient is conscious, coherent, and mentally ht to record the dying declaration. Preliminary questions were put by the the learned Magistrate ald being satisfied w"ith the answers given by the deceased, learned Magistrate asked the deceased the reasons for her receiving burns. The deceased informed that the appellant came home after having toddy and fought with her. Thereafter, he poured kerosene on her. Though the deceased tried to resist, however, the appellalt set her on fire. After that, P.W. 1 went to the police station in the evening of 01.09.2O1 2 at 7 p-m., and lodged a telugu written complaint. The Police ..gi"t.r.d the complaint and took up J investigation. During deceased,s treatment in the. hospital, she died on account of complications due to burns on 04.O9.2012, i.e., 4 days after the incident.-

5. A 2"d telugu written complaint was again filed by p.W. 1 on 04.O9.2072. In both the complaints, i.e., on Ot.O9.2Ot2 ard on O4.O9.2O12, p.W. 1 specifically stated that the appellant came home drunk, and poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire.

6. The Police thereafter arrested the appellant, and appellant's confession was recorded and he was sent to judicial remand. After the death of the deceased, inquest proceedings were concluded. Thereafter, the body was sent for autopsy. Autopsy Doctor/p.W. 14 performed autopsy and opined that there are 9l%o burn injuries and the deceased died due to its complications. Ex.p15 is the post mortem certificate.

7. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC, and found the appellant guilty under both the penal provisions and accordingly, convicted the appellant. 4

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the incident happened when the appellant was in an inebriated condition, and he was not in a position to assess the consequences of his acts. In view of his ment4l status at the time of the incident, it cannot be said that the appellant entertained an intent to cause the death of the deceased, or that he had any premeditation. As seen from the evidence of the witnesses and also the statement of the deceased, the appellant was in a drunken condition and the incident happened when there was a quarrei in between them.

9. I-earned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalu Ram vs. State of Rajasthant, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where the appellant was in a highly inebriated condition, demanding ornaments from deceased wife, and on her refusa-I, he doused her with kerosene and gave her a matchbox to set herself on fire. On her failure to do so, he took the matchbox ard ignited one matchstick, setting her ablaze. However, on seeing the flames, he poured water on his wife to save her. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble ' (2ooo) 10 scc a24 5 Supreine Court held that the offence falls within Section 304- II of IPC, as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the degree of intoxication of appellant is noi known. Only for the reason of consumption of toddy by the appellant during the incident, it cannot be said that he was not in a position to assess the situation and that he did not have knowledge that if his wife was burnt, she would die. I 1 . The complaint was lodged after the dying declaration was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 01.09.2012. The incident happened on the previous night. Admittedly, P.Ws.1, 2, and 3 met the deceased in the hospital, however, it was specilically stated by all the witnesses, and also by the deceased in her dying declaration to the learned Magistrate, that the appellant had consumed toddy and he was in a drunken condition when the incident happened. Having come home in a drunken condition, the appellant quarreled with the deceased. During the said quarrel, the appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire. Later, the appellant tried to rescue her. In the said process, the appellant also received burn injuries and was treated by P.W. 18, who was a 6 .l Senior Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Sirpur Town. According to him, the appellant received secondaqr burns on the front of the abdomen ald on the left fore arm ald ieft thigh. The injuries that were received by the appellant reflects his attempts to extinguish the flames on the deceased, since, in the said process he had received burn injuries. However, after parents and neighbours arrived at the scene, the appellant fled away.

12. In the present circumstances of the case, exception 4 of Section 3OO of IPC comes to the rescue of the appellant. Admittedly, the incident happened in the spur of the moment when the appellant came home in a drunken condition and quarreled with the deceased. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KaIu Ram,s case, found that the offence does not fall under Section 3O2 of IpC but under Section 304-II of IPC.

13. Keeping in view the present facts of the case, and placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalu Ram's case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of IpC. However, the appellalt is convicted under Section 304-II of 7 IPC and sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment. The conviction under Section 498-A of IPC is confirmed. Both the sentences under Sections 304-II of IPC and 498-A of IPC shall run concurrently

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Since the appellant is on bail, the concerned Court shall cause the appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence imposed. To, //TRUE COPY// I SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO \ JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 6 7 ifabad. (with records, if The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge a any) The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sirpur. The Superintendent, Central prison, Cherlapally, Medchal District. The Station House Officer, Kowtata police Station, Asifabad District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sri Y. Rama Rao, Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies kam/DL HIGH COURT DATED:0410312025 JUDGMENT GRLA.No.1282 of 2017 e ? o .L * t DI:SPAJ PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ul+lri