APHC01084106 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3578] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2932 OF 2018 Between: Vamana Chitti Babu ...APELLANT AND The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor and Others ...RESPODENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: Sri G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Respondents(S): ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.12 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. First charge was under Section 302 IPC and the second charge was under Section 498-A IPC. KSR, J. & CGR, J. Crl.Appeal No.2932 of 2016 2 2. Gravamen of the charge is that prior to 16th July, 2016 the accused used to harass his wife Vamana Kalavathi (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) and subjected her to cruelty by suspecting her fidelity and on 16.07.2016 at about 10.30 A.M., the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to her, at his house situated at Buridi Kancharam Village, and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the same day at about 17.15 hours, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. 3. After completion of trial, learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge also convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. KSR, J. & CGR, J. Crl.Appeal No.2932 of 2016 3 4. Case of the prosecution, as per the allegations made in the charge-sheet, briefly, is as follows. a) The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Buridi Kancharam Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. The deceased was also resident of the same village and she is none other than wife of the accused. Marriage between accused and deceased was performed about two years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with a daughter. PW.1 is the father; PW.2 is the mother; PW.3 is the sister and PW.4, PW.11, PW.12 and PW.13 are relatives of the deceased, respectively. After birth of the female child, the accused started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally, suspecting her fidelity. He used to beat the deceased with his hands and legs. She informed the harassment of the deceased to her parents, PW.1 and PW.2. (b) Whileso, at about 10.30 A.M. on 16.07.2016, as usual, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased, then the deceased poured kerosene on herself with an intention to commit suicide. When she was trying to light a matchstick, the accused snatched the matchbox from her and set fire to her. On hearing her cries, neighbours – PW.6, PW.7 and PW.9 came there. Having received the information, PW.1 and PW.2 also came to the house of the accused. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Hospital. On the same day at KSR, J. & CGR, J. Crl.Appeal No.2932 of 2016 4 about 9.00 P.M., PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. PW.19 A.S.I., Ponduru Police Station received Ex.P10 Report from PW.1 and registered a case in Crime No.56 of 2016 under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P23 is the FIR. (c) In the meanwhile, at about 1.00 P.M. on 16.07.2016, PW.16 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam, having received the intimation from Hospital, went and recorded the statement – Ex.P18 from the injured. The same is treated as a dying declaration. (d) On 17.07.2016, PW.19 A.S.I. sent a requisition to the Tahsildar, Ponduru, to depute two V.R.Os. for conducting inquest over the dead body. Accordingly, PW.15 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.14 and others at RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P16. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P24 at the scene of offence. He also prepared an observation report Ex.P15 at the scene of offence. He also took the photographs of the scene of offence marked as Exs.P25 and P26. He seized MO.1 plastic can at the scene of offence. On the same day, he recorded statements of PW.1 to PW.10. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the same day at about 17.15 hours. KSR, J. & CGR, J. Crl.Appeal No.2932 of 2016 5 (e) After completion of inquest, PW.15 sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. PW.17 Assistant Professor, RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to shock as a result of 90% burns. He issued Ex.P19 post mortem report. (f) Whileso, at about 3.00 P.M. on 16.08.2016, S.I. of Police, Ponduru Police Station, received copy of dying declaration from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam. On the basis of the said dying declaration, he altered Section of Law from Sections 498-A and 306 IPC to Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. Ex.P27 is the altered memo. He issued copies of the altered F.I.R. to all the concerned. (g) Further investigation was taken over by PW.21 Inspector of Police, J.R. Puram. Immediately, PW.21 proceeded with investigation. He verified the statements of PW.1 to PW.10 recorded by PW.19. He also recorded statements of PW.11 to PW.13. On 07.08.2016, he sent the material objects to F.S.L., Hyderabad. (h) On 08.08.2016, PW.21 arrested the accused at his residence and was remanded to judicial custody. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW.21 filed charge- sheet. KSR, J. & CGR, J. Crl.Appeal No.2932 of 2016 6 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.21, marked Exs.P1 to P39 and exhibited MO.1. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7. Accepting the dying declaration-Ex.P18, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid, vide impugned judgment, dated 14.09.2018. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 8. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the appellant/ accused, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent/State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused strenuously contends that no reliance can be placed on dying declaration-Ex.P18 recorded by PW.16, judicial officer. He further contends that all the material prosecution witnesses, including parents of deceased, did not support the prosecution and they were declared as hostile. Except the so- called dying declaration-Ex.P18, there is no other evidence available on record. He further contends that even in Ex.P18 dying declaration, the deceased has stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the fateful day at about 10.00 A.M. It is KSR, J. & CGR, J. Crl.Appeal No.2932 of 2016 7 further stated in the dying declaration that as she intended to commit suicide, she herself poured kerosene on her body. It is further stated in the dying declaration that, at that juncture, the accused set fire to the deceased. Coming to the ocular version of parents of the deceased, they have stated before the Investigating Officer, that the deceased committed suicide, unable to bear the harassment at the hands of the accused. Investigating Officer – PW.21 also in his cross- examination admitted as follows: “It is true that all the witnesses stated that the accused came there later and he accompanied his wife along with parents of his wife in 108 Ambulance to the hospital”. As such, the earliest version of all the prosecution witnesses before the Investigating Officer was that the deceased poured kerosene on herself and set fire to herself. Even in the inquest report – Ex.P16, at Col.No.15, the mediators opined that the deceased poured kerosene on herself and tried to commit suicide. As such, he requests this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentences recorded by the learned trial Judge. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal, contending that dying declaration-Ex.P18, which was recorded by PW.16, Judicial Officer, can be relied on, and there is nothing to discard Ex.P18. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment. KSR, J. & CGR, J. Crl.Appeal No.2932 of 2016 8 11. We have perused the entire material on record. Admittedly, all the material witnesses did not support the prosecution version and they were declared as hostile. The only evidence available on record is the so-called dying declaration-Ex.P18, recoded by PW.16. In Ex.P18, the deceased has stated that she intended to commit suicide and, with that intention, she poured kerosene on herself. Later, the accused set fire to her. Except these three lines, she did not state anything. Of course, she stated that it was preceded by a small quarrel between both of them. But, parents and sister of the deceased, who were examined as PW.1 to PW.3, did not support the case of the prosecution. In their earliest version before the Investigating Officer, they have stated that the deceased committed suicide, unable to bear the harassment at the hands of the accused. As such, initially, the case of prosecution was a case of suicide. But, in the dying declaration, the deceased has given a divergent version stating that with an intention to commit suicide, she poured kerosene on herself, then the accused set her ablaze. As such, dying declaration – Ex.P18 does not inspire confidence of this Court. Further, there is no corroboration from any independent witness, at least from the parents of the deceased, to the so-called dying declaration-Ex.P18. KSR, J. & CGR, J. Crl.Appeal No.2932 of 2016 9 12. Having analysed the uncorroborated dying declaration-Ex.P18 carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it does not inspire confidence of this Court. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, needs to be interfered with. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, in Sessions Case No.12 of 2018, dated 14.09.2018, are hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to him. As the appellant is enlarged on bail by order, dated 29.04.2024, vide I.A.No.1 of 2023, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. ___________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. Date: 05th May, 2026. cs