Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K. Neelakanteswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I i THE HONOURABLE SRI {J{.FTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1379 OF 2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri nstice K.Surencler)

1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.01.2016, in S.C.No.13O of 2015, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

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 on 24.O4.2014, around 1O:30 p.m. in the night, appellant went to the house of the deceased. The deceased was studying 6tt' class and she was sitting in front of the house. The appellant questioned deceased as to why she was sitting in front of the house, then the deceased replied that she had to work. The appellhnt asked for kerosene. The deceased informed that kerosene was available in the front yard. The appellant then took the kerosene tin, poured kerosene on deceased and set her on fire and fled. While fleeing, she threatened the deceased not to 2 inform anyone about the incidena, failing which the appellant would kill her. Hearing the deceased shout for help, the negibours came there and covered her with a gunny bag. Then her mother/P.W. 1, grandmother, grandfather and one Auto Rarriulu (not examined) shifted her to the hospitai.

4. The dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate around 2 a.m., on 25.O4.2014.

5. After the deceased died, inquest proceedings were conducted and the body was sent for post mortem examination. Post mortem Doctor opined the cause of death as burning.

6. The charge sheet was laid mainly on the basis of dying declaration that was recorded by the learned Magistrate /P.W.7. Even prior to dying declaration being recorded by the Magistrate, the statement of the victim was recorded by B.Anji Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police/P.W.5. In the statement given to P.W.S, victim stated that around 10 p.m. in the night, the appellant came to her house and took kerosene from the house, and poured it on her and lit her on fire. At that time, neighbours came there and poured water on her. Then P.W. l/mother, maternal grandmother, grandfather, grandmother's sister, have all taken her to the hospital. I l I

7. The statement recorded by*P.W.S and also statement recorded by learned Magistrate formed basis to convict the appellant. P.W.l is not the witness to the alleged burning of the deceased. P.W.2 stated. that she is a neighbor, seeing the deceased on flames, they poured water on her and woke up P.W. 1/mother, who was stil1 sleeping in the house. Relatives of P.W. I came there and shifted the deceased to the hospital. B. The paternal grandmother, grandfather, and Auto Ramulu were not examined by the prosecution during trial, though, they were cited as L.Ws.4, 5, and 6. All three witnesses were given I I up during trial by the Public Prosecutor.

9. The person named as Auto Ramulu was not identified by the Police during examination.

10. P.W.7 stated that victim was admitted in the hospital with 1OO% mixed flame burns.

11. The declaration given by the deceased becomes doubtful for the reason of deceased receiving 100%o burns. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sanjayl held that the dying declaration must inspire full confidence in its truthfulness ald correctness. Its intrinsic worth and reliability ' lzoo+1 t: scc :r+ I can be determined from its tenor and contents. A woman sustaining 95% burn injuries, giving unnecessary minute details in the dying declaration, cannot be relied on.

12. The deceased in the statement recorded by p.W.4, at O0:40 hrs on 25.04.2014, stated as follows: "I stay at the above mentioned address. Today i.e. on 24-4-2014 abottt 10 hours concerning water had quarrel with Gouda Muthamma. At that instance, Muthamma took the kerosene from my house, poured on to my body and set on fire. At that time the neighbors came and put water on my body. After that my mother, grandmother, china grandmother, grandfather all together brought me in the Auto to OGH hospital and admitted. There were quarrels between me and Muthamma frequentiy. The Police have enquired the above said issues, I agree all is truth and signed her below."

13. In the statement given to P.W.6/Magistrate, at 2:IS a.rn. on 25.04.2014, it is stated as follows: l "Can you tel1 how your body is burnt? Ans: My name is Bhavani. I am studying 6th class. Yesterday night about 10 hours I sweep the front yard and dumped wastage. Muthamma who stays next to our house asked me "do you have kerosene (gas no a 5 one) in your house". I said why, she said "I have work", then I said there is a 5 lts. Can frlled with Kerosene on the shelf in our house. She took that kerosene in another container and put on my body, lit the fire on my body with match stick and fled away. At that time, ali our household people were sleeping' Muthamma said "if you wake up your mother, I will kill you". By hearing my screams the neighbors have come and covered a gunny bag on my body and shut the fires. Then, my mother, grandmother, grandfather, Auto Ramulu and others brought me to this hospital in Auto Ramulu Auto. Muthamma was picking quarrel often with me. She don't tolerate at all, if she sees me. Our family members wont talk to Muthamma's family." L4. In the first statement made to P.W.4, the deceased narrated that there was quarrel in between the appellant and herself. The quarrel was in between her and the appellant and in the said quarrel, the appellant took kerosene, poured on her and set her on fire. Further coming to the statement made before the Magistrate, it was stated by the victim that the appellant went to her and asked her whether there was kerosene ancl the deceased asked her the reason, then the appellant replied that she has some work. The appellant then went into the house, poured kerosene in another container and , I 6 doused deceased with kerosene and lit her on fire. The two statements are contradicting one another.

15. The Honble Supreme Court in similar circumstances in State of Maharashtra v. Sanjayz, held that unnecessary minute details were given by the deceased when she was in a serious condition. Similar is the situation in the present case. The narration before the Magistrate, giving all the details, gives rise to suspicion regarding its correctness, when the appellant received 100% burn injuries. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed. I I

16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is on bail, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled. \ \ To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO T REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. (with records, if any) 2. The XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Chanchalguda. 4. The Station House Officer, tulangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad. 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri K. Neelakanteswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies kam/gh HIGH COURT DATED:13102:,12025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1379 of 2017 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL I I 1HE S 14 14: q ?4 flAfi 2025 I (<\( * o n.11 rr ii?0 t