The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. Srinivasa Srikanth, Legal Aid Counsel Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: I THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1346 0F 2017 JUDGMENT: (pcr Hon'ble Si Justice K.surender) 1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.09 2Ot7 in S.C.No.384 of 2Ot1,on the file of the Special Judge for SC/ST (pOA) Cases_Cum_VII Additional District Judge at Waragnal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant ana Sri ,{iun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.

3. The appellant who is the husband of the deceased was charged for the offence under Sections 498_4 and 3O2 of IpC. Learned Sessions Judge after considering the case on record, acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 49g_A of IPC, however, convicted him for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

4. P.W. I complaint. is the mother of the deceased who lodged the She narrated that in the year, 2003, her deceased marriage was performed with the appellant. Dowry was given and they lived happily for some time. They daughter's I z were blessed with two daughters. The appellant started suspecting character of the deceased and used to beat her on a regular basis. Panchayats were held thrice ald deceased unable to bear harassment of the appellant, started living with P.W. I for some time. The deceased was harassed for additional dowry. The incident happened in th-e house of sister of the appellant in the night. P.W. 1 was informed by the sister of the appellant that the appellant stabbed the deceased. Due to the stab injuries, while undergoing treatment, deceased died in the hospital.

5. P.W. I turned hostile during trial and stated that when all the family members consumed liquor, due to drowsiness, her deceased daughter fell on a knife and got injured. Similarly, other witnesses also turned hostile to the prosecution case.

6. The basis for convicting the appellant is the dying declaration which was recorded by P.W.25/Magistrate in the hospital on 20.03.2011. P.W.25 went to the hospital pursuant to the requisition that was given by the Police. After going to the hospital, P.W.25 ascertained the condition of the patient. The dut5r Doctor signed underneath printed J certiflcation. The printed format reads, "The patient is conscious and coherent for recording dging d.eclaration,,. Therea-fter, P.W.25 put preliminary questions to the deceased. The Magistrate endorsed from the answers given by the deceased to the preliminaqr questions, that she was satisfied that the victim is conscious and coherent and started recording dying declaration. To the 7u question posed as to what happened, the deceased stated that while she was sleeping, the appellant stabbed her with a knife. Other questions were also asked by the learned Magistrate, however, deceased did not involve any of the other accused apart from the appellant being responsible for her injuries. After the questions and answers were recorded by the Magistrate, the Doctor in writing endorsed that the "patient is conscious and coherent throughout the recording,,.

7. The deceased underwent treatment in MGM hospital. P.W. 10 is the Surgeon who stated that oo 2O.O3.2O1 1, the deceased was admitted in the hospital ald when enquired, she stated that her husband stabbed her, around 1 1: l0 p.m., on that day. P.W. 10 examined her and found that she sustained two stab injuries in the abdomen and on the same day, surgery was conducted. p.W. 1O during surgery further 4 found that there was two liters of blood present in the peritoneal cavity of abdomen, four perforations to the intestine and there was a tear in the mesentery. While undergoing treatment, the deceased absconded from hospital on 25.03.201 I . Ex.P. 13 is the case sheet maintained at the hospital.

8. P.W. 11 is the Doctor who examined the deceased on

25.O3.2011 at 5:3O p.m. P.W. 11 stated that she was brought to the hospital by one of her relatives and the case \1stoV was that she was treated in the MGM hospital, from there she absconded and was talen to SVR hospital. The deceased was in a state of shock and ultimately died on 27.03.2077 due to cardio respiratory arrest.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the death was not a direct consequence of stabbing. Further, the witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case. Only on the basis of dying declaration, the appellant was sentenced and conrricted by the learned Sessions Judge. In fact, the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate is contradicting with the statement given to the Police which is Ex.P.36. For the said reason of 5 contradictory versions given by the deceased, one to the Police, alother to the Magistrate, the statement made by the deceased has to be eschewed from consideration. 1 O. We have gone through the statement made to the Magistrate, which is Ex.P.32 and also to the police which is Ex.P.36. In both statements, the deceased consistently stated that it was the appellant who had stabbed her with a knife. There is a slight variation regarding presence of other family members. The said variation in the present facts is of no consequencc, since the version of the rrictim that it was the appellant who stabbed her around 1 1 : 1O p.m. is consistent in both the statements. 1 1. The cause of death was on account of cardio respiratory arrest. Neither P.W.1 nor PME Doctor stated that death was a direct consequence of the injuries to the intestine, In the I I absence of proof that the injuries inflicted by the appellant has resulted in the death, the question of conviction of the I I appellant under Section 3O2 of IPC does not arise. The Doctor did not say that the death of the deceased, due to cardio respiratory arrest, was a direct consequence of the injuries inflicted by the appellant. 6

12. However, as seen from the injuries received by the victim, there were two perforations in the intestine' since, the appellant stabbed deceased twice. In the said circumstances, we deem it appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 307 of IPC while setting aside the conviction under Section 3O2 of IPC. The appellant is sentenced to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed' Since the appellant is on bail, he shatl be summoned by the Court concerned and sent to prison to serve out the remaining part of sentenced imposed by this Court. //TRUE COPY// A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ To, Warangal.(By Speed post) Judge at Warangal. (With records, if any) (By Speed post) 1 The Special Judge for sc/sr (poA) cases-cum-Vil- Additionar District 2. The Vl Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, 3 The lnspector of Police, Hanamkonda. (By Speed post) 4 The Superintendent Central prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 6. One CC to Sri. Srinivasa Srikanth, Legat Aid Counset, Advocate tOpUCl ' 7. Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. (By Special Messlnger) 8 Two CD Copies Hyderabad. (OUT) District. DL/gh HIGH COURT DATED:06/0212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1346 of 2017 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \\ (l6I b o \ 0 lr} k Q o 1t E S14 ,( 07fiAR 2025 * SPATCP 90 t (