APHC011037572017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1755/2017 Between: 1. POLINA SIVASANKAR, R/O. OBANAPALLI VILLAGE, KODURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON KADAPA, CT.NO.7229 1. STATE OF AP, rep. by its inspector of police railway kodur Ps., Kadapa District, through Public Prosecutor, high Court Buildings, Hyderabad. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, t pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence dated 20.11.2017, passed in S.C. No. 82 of 2013 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above CrI.A. No 1755 of 2017, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1755/2017 POLINA SIVASANKAR, R/O. OBANAPALLI VILLAGE, KODURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON KADAPA, ...AP AND STATE OF AP, rep. by its inspector of police railway kodur circle, Kodur Ps., Kadapa District, through Public Prosecutor, high Court Buildings, ...RESPO Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence dated 20.11.2017, passed in S.C. No. 82 of 2013 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above CrI.A. No pellant: dent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3528] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY POLINA SIVASANKAR, R/O. OBANAPALLI VILLAGE, KODURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON KADAPA, PPELLANT circle, Kodur Ps., Kadapa District, through Public Prosecutor, high Court Buildings, ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated he High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence dated 20.11.2017, passed in S.C. No. 82 of 2013 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above CrI.A. No. 2 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.82 of 2013 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajampet (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge”) is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. The first charge was under Section 498A IPC, and the second charge was under Section 302 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that prior to 17.08.2011, the appellant subjected his wife by name Mounika (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) to cruelty demanding her additional dowry from her parents and also took away the gold jewellery presented by her parents and on 17.08.2011 took the deceased to the backside of his house and poured kerosene on her body and set fire to her and while undergoing treatment at about 11.45 A.M., on 18.08.2011, the deceased succumbed to injuries at S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498A & 302 IPC. 3. After completion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the accused under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer 3 Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: (a) The accused and material prosecution witnesses are residents of Obanapalli Village, Koduru Mandal, Kadapa District. PW.1 is the father, PW.2 is the relative, PW.3 is the brother and PW.6 is the cousin of the deceased respectively. The marriage between the accused and deceased was performed about 4 years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with a son, aged about 3 years. After the birth of the son, the accused addicted to vices and started harassing the deceased. On that, the deceased left the matrimonial home and went to her parents’ house. In that regard, the elders convened a Panchayat and thereafter, the deceased again joined the matrimonial home with the accused. While so, on 17.08.2011 at about 08.00 P.M., the accused took the deceased to backside of his house and poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. Hearing the cries, the neighbours, PWs 3 and 6 came there and put off the flames and shifted her to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati. At about 05.30 A.M. on 18.08.2011, PW.14 Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Kodur Police Station received intimation from the hospital. In the meanwhile, at about 12.00 midnight on 17.08.2011, PW.13 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, received Ex.P16 intimation from the hospital. Immediately, he visited the hospital at about 12.10 midnight and recorded dying declaration Ex.P15 from the injured. At about 07.00 A.M. on 18.08.2011, PW.14 recorded dying declaration Ex.P21 from the deceased. 4 On the basis of Ex.P21, PW.14 registered a case in Cr.No.151/2011 under Section 498A IPC and 307 IPC. He issued copies of the F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P17. While undergoing treatment, at about 11.45 A.M., the injured succumbed to injuries. Having received death intimation, PW.14 altered the F.I.R. to Section 302 IPC. Altered F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P18. Further investigation was taken over by PW.15. (b) On 18.08.2011 at about 05.45 P.M., PW.15 received copy of F.I.R. and visited the S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati at about 07.30 P.M. He secured presence of PWs 1 to 3 and recorded their statements. On 19.08.2011, he held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.10 and another. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P8. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination. (c) PW.12 Assistant Professor, S.V. Medical College, Tirupati, conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to burns. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P13. (d) In the meanwhile, PW.14 went to the scene of offence along with PW.8 and other mediators and prepared an observation report. He also seized M.O.s 1 to 7 at the scene of offence under a Panchanama. On 31.08.2011, PW.15 arrested the accused at Railway Kodur Railway station. The material objects were sent to the F.S.L. R.F.S.L. report is marked as Ex.P20. After collecting all the documents and after completion of the investigation, PW.15 filed charge sheet. 5 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15, marked exhibits P.1 to P.23 and exhibited M.Os. 1 to 7. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D1 portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 was marked. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 8. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that most of the material witnesses and Panch witnesses i.e., PWs 1, 2, 4, 7 to 11 did not support the prosecution and they were declared as hostile. He further contended that so far as PWs 3 & 6 are concerned, they are closely related to the deceased, no reliance can be placed on their evidence. He further contends that even according to PWs 3 & 6, they are not eye witness to the incident. He further contends that so far as the dying declarations, marked as Exs.P15 & P21 are concerned, they are not consistent and no reliance can be placed on the said dying declarations. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P.1 On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant requests this Court 1 (1999) 7 SCC 69 6 to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by allowing the appeal. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail contending that though all the witnesses turned hostile, the dying declaration Ex.P15 recorded by the judicial officer, who was examined as PW.13, can be relied on. So far as the manner of the attack is concerned, the same is consistent in the dying declaration recorded by the police which was marked as Ex.P21. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all helpful as all of them except PWs 3 & 6 did not support the prosecution. So far as PWs 3 & 6 are concerned, admittedly they are not eye witness to the incident. Further, the deceased in her earliest dying declaration Ex.P15 has not stated their names. As such, the evidence of PWs 3 & 6 also is not helpful to the prosecution. 13. Coming to the dying declaration recorded by PW.13, which was marked as Ex.P15, the deceased has minutely described about the manner in which the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said dying declaration which was recorded by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Further, Ex.P15 was recorded 7 at about 12.00 A.M. on the intervening night of 17/18.08.2011. So far as the dying declaration recorded by PW.14 is concerned, he recorded said statement at about 07.00 A.M. on 18.08.2011. In the second dying declaration Ex.P21 also, the deceased has stated that in the backside of their house the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. Pouring of kerosene on the deceased and setting fire to her at the relevant point of time at the relevant place is consistent in both the dying declarations. Some minor variations with regard to the earlier incidents cannot be viewed seriously, as they do not affect the substratum of the prosecution version. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as both these dying declarations marked as Exs.P15 & P21 inspire confidence of this Court, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it is the accused who is responsible for the death of the deceased. So far as Section 498A IPC is concerned, no allegations are made attracting the said offence. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajampet, under Section 302 IPC, in Sessions Case No.82/2013 vide judgment dt. 20.11.2017, is hereby confirmed. The conviction and sentence recorded by learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajampet, under Section 498A IPC, is hereby set aside. As the appellant was released on bail by this Court by order dt. 02.01.2023 in terms of the order of the Composite High Court for the State of 8 Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Rangarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, he is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment, failing which the learned Trial Judge is directed to secure the presence of accused by issuing Non-Bailable warrants and commit him to prison. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________ V.SUJATHA, J 21.07.2025 MVA 2 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)