IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.87Q nf 9017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20-03-2017 passed in SC No.151/2015 on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari Between: 1. Chilaparthi Veerraju, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 19 R/d. Koppulavarigudem, H/o. Taduvai Village, Mandal, West Godavari District. District. years, Occ; Rajaka, Jangareddygudem 2. Bondada Sivaiah, S/o. Pullaiah aged 70 years, Occ: Rajaka, R/o. Koppulavarigudem, H/o.Taduvai Village, Jangareddygudem West Godavari District. Mandal, ...Appellants/Accused AND The State of AP. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (through Inspector of Police, Jangareddygudem Circle, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District.) ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Counsel for the Respondent : Sri K Jyothi Prasad (Legal Aid) :SRI SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO : Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: JUDGMENT msm APHC010176332017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 870/2017 [3528] ■ IW 4 Between: ChilaparthiVeerraju, Wg.dt&Anr. and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND The State Of Ap Rep Pp Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.KJYOTHI PRASAD 2.SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO ...RESPONDENT 3.0 4. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 KSR,J&VS,J Cria 870 2017 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice V. Sujatha) Both the accused in S.C.No.151 of 2015 on the file of Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur are the appellants. They tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. were The first charge was under Section 449 I PC as against accused Nos.1 and 2. The second charge was under Section 302 IPC as against accused Nos.1 and 2. Gravamen of the charge is that on 07.12.2023, at about 11.00 p.m., the appellants, in order to do away with the life of Venkata Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) have entered into her house while she was in sleep along with her children and in the same process, A1 poured kerosene her body and A2 put fire to her with the help of a match stick, due to which, she sustained burned injuries and died on 13.12.2013, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 IPC. 2. on After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted both accused under Section 449 (a) 3 KSR,J&VS,J Cria 870 2017 IPC and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in brief is as follows: The deceased as well as the accused are the residents of Koppulavarigudem, hamlet of Taduvai village, Jangareddygudem. Both the deceased and the accused were eking out their livelihood by doing coolie works. A2 is the maternal grand father of A1. The case of the prosecution is that the father of A1 misbehaved with the younger daughter of the deceased (P.W.2). On one occasion, there was a quarrel about a missing sheep between the families of the accused and the deceased. On 07.12.2013, at about 11.00 p.m., when the deceased with her two daughters was sleeping in her house, to do away the deceased (Venkata Lakshmi) in order to avoid further disputes, both the accused went into the house of the deceased as the door was not bolted from inside. Thereafter, A1 poured kerosene, filled in a steel vessel, on the body of the deceased, on which, the deceased woke up and A2 lit the fire with a match stick, thereby, flames flared up, in the light of the same, she identified A1. On hearing the cries of the deceased, her two daughters woke up and tried to rescue their mother; in that process P.W.2 4 KSR,J&VS,J Cria 870 2017 received injury to her right palm. Thereafter, the injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Jangareddygudem in an ambulance. The hospital authorities intimated the same to P.W.11 - Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddygudem and as well as to P.W.12 Jangareddygudem vide Ex.P5. On receiving intimation from the hospital S.l. of Police authorities, P.W.12 - S.l. of Police, Jangareddygudem, rushed to the hospital at about 12.20 a.m., and recorded the statement of the injured, which was marked as Ex.P.7. Thereafter, he returned to Police Station and at about 01.45 a.m., registered a case in Crime No.311 of 2013 under Sections 307 448 read with 34 IPC and has served the copy of the FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P.8 is the FIR. In pursuance of Ex.P.5, P.W.11 - Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddygudem, rushed to Government hospital Jangareddygudem at about 01.10 a.m., and recorded the dying declaration of the injured which is marked as Ex.P.6. P.W.12, after registering Ex.P.8, has again visited the Area Hospital, Jangareddygudem and recorded 161 Cr.P.C statement of the injured and as well as the statement of P.W.2 who was also taking treatment in the said hospital. On the same day morning, he visited the scene of offence located at Koppulavarigudem village, hamlet of Vegavaram and prepared the scene observation report in the presence of P.Ws.9 and 10, which is marked as Ex.P.4 and also prepared the rough sketch. At the time of conducting scene observation panchanama, P.W.12 seized M.Os.1 to 3. On 12.12.2023, at 07.00 p.m., P.W.12 arresteiiDoth the accused and recorded 5 KSR,J&VS,J Crla_870_2017 their confessional statements in the presence of P.Ws.9 and 10. On 13.12.2013, both the accused were sent to judicial custody. On the same day, at about 09.30 a.m., on receiving death intimation of the deceased from the Area Hospital, Eluru, P.W.12 altered the section of law from 307 to 302 IPC and handed over the FIR to P.W.13 - Inspector of Police, Jangareddygudem for further investigation. Ex.P.9 is the altered FIR. On receiving Ex.P.9 from P.V\/.12, P.W.13 proceeded with further investigation. On the same day, P.W.13 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.9 and 10, during which he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 along with another and recorded their statements. Ex.P.10 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he left to Koppulavarigudem and examined P.Ws.6 to 9 along with others and recorded their statements. He sent the body for postmortem examination. On 13.12.2013, on receiving requisition from P.W.13, at about 01.30 p.m., P.W.8 - Senior Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased would have died of burns and its complications and infection. Ex.P.3 is the postmortem certificate issued by P.W.8. P.W.14, who is the successor of P.W.13, after verifying thoroughly the investigation done by P.W.13 has filed a charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14, marked exhibits PI to P10 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 3. On behalf of the defence, the 6 KSRJ&VS,J Cria 870 2017 marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with others were marked as Exs.D.1 to 5. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as supra. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred. 6. Heard Sri. K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for Appellant No.l/AI, and Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned Legal Aid counsel for Appellant No.2/A.2: and Sri. Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that except P.Ws.2 and 3, who are none other than the daughters of the deceased, there is no other eye witness to establish the guilt as against the accused. He further argued that it is an admitted fact that there were disputes between the family of the deceased and that of the accused, because of which the 7. deceased and P.Ws.2 and 3 have deposed as against the accused herein though they have not committed any offence. So far as evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, as he was living separately from the deceased, his evidence cannot be considered. It is also the case of the appellants that as the 7 KSR,J&VS,j Crla_870_2017 deceased was worried about solemnizing the marriage of her two daughters, she went into depression and has committed suicide. He further contended that as per Ex.P.3 issued by P.W.8, the cause of death of the deceased is due to complications and infections caused by burns, but, not because of the burns. Except the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, there is no other eye witness. Though P.Ws.5 and 6, who are the neighbors to the house of the deceased have supported the prosecution initially, they turned hostile. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that the only motive attributed against the accused is that there are disputes between the families of the deceased and the accused, but, the said motive can also be seen on the other side i.e. the deceased might have committed suicide due to her personal problems which include disputes with P.W.1, solemnizing the marriage of her daughters and their maintenance. She might have also committed suicide afraid of a criminal case related to a complaint given by the family of the accused. as 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that there are two dying declarations recorded by P.Ws.11 and 12, which are inconsistent and are contradictory to the oral evidence on record. As such, they cannot be relied on. Learned counsel for the appellants also stated that it is the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that A1 poured kerosene on the deceased and that A2 lit the fire because of which the deceased received burn injuries and died in the 8 KSR,J&VS,J Cria 870 2017 hospital after 5 days. Placing reliance on Ex.P8 which states that the deceased appears to have died of burns, its complications and infections, learned counsel for the appellants contended that if at all the deceased would have been given proper treatment as on the date of incident, she would have survived. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maniben V. State of Gujarat\ As such, he sought for allowing the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently 9. opposed the appeal by contending that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are none other than the own daughters of the deceased and as well as the eye witnesses to the said incident clinchingly establish the presence of the accused at the relevant point of time. He further contends that ocular version spoken by the prosecution witnesses, especially P.Ws.2 and 3 has been corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by P.W.8, coupled with Ex.P.3, 6 and 7. As such, he requested this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 10. ^ (2009 (2) ALD (CrI.) 797 (SC) 9 KSR,J&VS,J Cria 870 2017 11. P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased, who is living separately from her. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased and also the eye witnesses to the incident. Both P.Ws.2 and 3, in their evidence have categorically stated that when P.W.2 went to public tap, the father of A1 caught hold of her hand and spoke abusively. When P.W.2 informed the same to the deceased, she got angry and scolded the father of A1 in front of the neighboring people because of which, their family bore grudge against the family of the deceased. While so, on 07.12.2013, when the deceased and her daughters were sleeping, both the accused opened the door and entered into the house and poured kerosene on the body of the deceased which was brought in a vessel. A2 lit fire to their mother with a match stick and in the meanwhile, both of them woke up and saw the accused running away. P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased who deposed with regard to the disputes between the two families. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the neighbors of P.Ws.2 and 3, who, though initially supported the case of the prosecution, they turned hostile. P.W.7 is the photographer who has taken photographs of saree barakam, jacket, which were burnt to some extent only. P.W.8 is the Senior Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Head Quarters hospital, Eluru who conducted postmortem examination and issued Ex.P3. P.Ws.9 and 10 are the panch witnesses. P.W.11 is the Judicial First Class Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased vide Ex.P.6. P.Ws.12 to 14 are the investigating officers. 10 KSRJ&VS,J Crla_870 2017 After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, 12. we find that it is not in dispute that the alleged incident took place in the night of 07.12.2013, when the deceased was sleeping in her house along with her two daughters. At that juncture, both the accused have allegedly trespassed into the house of the deceased and A1 poured kerosene over the body of the deceased, due to which she woke up and yelled. Then, P.W.2 woke up and saw A2 lit fire to her mother. Immediately, both the accused ran away and upon hearing the cries of P.Ws.2 and 3, neighbors came to the scene of offence and sent the deceased to hospital, where, she died on 13.12.2013. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate which is marked as Ex.P.3 wherein, he stated that ‘the deceased would appear to have died of burns and its complications and infections’. The documentary and oral evidence of the doctor, as adduced, that he treated the deceased and conducted the postmortem examination is crystal clear that the deceased was admitted in the hospital with 90% burn injuries and during the course of treatment, she developed infections and complications caused due to burns which was the main cause of death of the deceased. It is therefore established that if at all the deceased had been given proper treatment, she would have survived. 11 KSR,J&VS,J Crla_870_2017 When a case with similar set of facts came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maniben v. State of Gujarat (1®‘ supra), the Court held as under; 13. “14. ...From the aforesaid evidence on record it cannot be said that the had the intention that such action on her part would cause the death or such bodily injury to the deceased, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the case cannot be said to be covered under clause (4) of Section 300 of IPC. We however, of the considered opinion that the case of the appellant is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC.” appellant are, 14. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the Terylene clothes of the deceased were set on fire by means of a burning wick of rags. The deceased remained under treatment in hospital for eight days and died thereafter. She had sustained about 60% burn injuries and also developed septicemia, which was the main cause of death. The evidence on record proved that the action of the accused in throwing the burning wick was preceded by a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that it could not be said that the accused had the intention to cause death or such bodily injury to the deceased which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Supreme Court therefore opined that the case could not be said to be covered under clause 4 of Section 300 IPC. The conviction was accordingly reduced to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. 12 KSR,J&VS,J Crla_870_2017 I 15. The Division Bench Doddagirigowda, S/o.Thimmegowda case where the death sustained by the injured. of Karnataka High Court i Girigowda @ ’ dealt with a as a result of burn injuries sustained 42% - in Vs. State of Karnataka^ was due to Septicemia It was a case where the deceased 44 % burn injuries. White dealing with the said aspect, the Court held that of the accused; that PW17 has was due to Septicemia death is not a direct consequence of the act given his opinion that the death as a result of which has entered into the lungs poisoning and inhaling of the smoke heart of the deceased. Therefore, i fall under Section 302 IPC, since the death i and It is submitted by him that offence does or Section 304 of IPC and it falls not under Section 326 act of the accused. IS not the direct consequence of the 16. Even in the on hand, the deceased succumbed to death case due to the caused by the burns, but not solely due would be met if the conviction and complications and the infections to burns. Therefore, ends of justice recorded against A1 under Section part - II. sentence 302 IPC is modified to that of Section 304 17. Insofar as A2 is declarations, recorded vide Ex. P.6 A1 along with another entered into her house and concerned, the deceased and Ex.P.7, has in both the dying consistently deposed that person who has covered his body with blanket poured kerosene on her and lit her. have But, specific ^2012 Law Suit (Kar) 1230 \ 13 KSR,J&VS,J ' Cria 870 2017 allegation against A2 was neither attributed in the dying declarations nor in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. When no specific evidence is adduced as against A2, he is liable to be acquitted. 18. Though learned counsel for the appellants pleaded that the deceased, worrying about solemnizing the marriage of her two daughters, went into depression and has committed suicide, the same cannot be believed as the marriage of P.W.3 (elder daughter of the deceased) was already fixed even prior to the date of incident i.e. 07.12.2013. 19. In the result the appeal is partly-allowed setting aside the conviction and / sentence recorded against A1 in the judgment dated 20.03.2017 in / I / . S.C.No.151 of 2015 by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. However, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-ll of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 304 Part-ll of IPC, however, the sentence of imprisonment is confined to the period already undergone by him. As the appellant - accused No.1 has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 27.03.2024 in I.A.No.01 of 2024, in terms of the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by a Division Bench of the Composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Rangarao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh^, he is directed ^ 2016 (3) Alt (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.) 14 KSR,J&VSJ Cria 870 2017 to surrender before the concerned jail authorities for completing the formalities for his release. Further, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against A2 in S.C.No.151 of 2015 is set-aside and he is acquitted. Therefore, the appellant/accused No. 2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Further, the fine amount, if any, paid by A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 449 I PC shall be refunded to him. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. \ Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR a //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari Rajamahendravaram Godavari District, (by Speed Post) WesI GSan°Sict’ Circle i?l^arava®th?[OU^"“'‘= Prosecutor, High Court ofAndhra 5. One CC to Sri K Jyothi Prasad (Legal Aid), Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section Amaravathi. 8. Three CD Copies District. East Jangareddygudem Pradesh, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at TK NM HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER I ® 5 2025 * Current Saciion. CRLA.No.870 of 2017 Co. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IN PART