IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1184 AND 1218 of 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1184 of 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the judgment and sentence dated 12.09.2017 in S.C.No.87 of 2013 passed by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: 1. Chevveti Simhachalam, W/o. Kannayya, aged 60 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Thimmapuram Village, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Manjeti Vasantha, W/o. Rajarao, aged 28 years, Occ; House wife, R/o. Gabbada Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, N/o. Thimmapuram Village, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...Appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, though Inspector of Police, Yelamanchili Circle, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT V- Counsel for the Appellants : SRI N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent : SRI MARRI VENKATA RAMANA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1218 of 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the judgment and sentence dated 12.09.2017 in S.C.No.87 of 2013 passed by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: 1. Chevveti Varalaxmi, W/o. Chanti Babu @ Chanti, aged 29 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Thimmapuram Village, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Chevveti Sankaramma, W/o. Yakub Raju, aged 33 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Thimmapuram Village, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam . District. 2. ...APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.4 & 5 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, though Inspector of Police, Yelamanchili Circle, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellants : SRI N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent : SRI MARRI VENKATA RAMANA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIVIARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA ^IMINAL APPEAL NO- 11«4/9n-[7 APHC010446702017 0:y0 [3528] MARCH Between: 1.CHEVVETI SIMHACHALAM WIFE, R/o. W/0. KANNAYYA, ^ ^ THIMMAPURAM S.RAYAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 2.MANJETI VASANTHA, W/0. RAJARAO, WIFE, R/O. GABBADA VILLAGE, N/0. THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE,' VISAKHAPTANAM DISTRICT. OCC; VILLAGE, DISTRICT. HOUSE OCC; HOUSE NARSIPAIRIAM MANDAL, S.RAYAVARAM MANDAL, ...APELLANT(S) the state of ANDHRA PRADESH REP PP though Inspector of Police, Yelamanchili Circle, rep. by iis Pubfc rosecutor. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT AND Counsel for the Appellant(S)- 1.N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent' 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) AND 2 Crl.A.Nos,1184 AND 1218 OF 2017 fr- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010187192017 [3528] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1218/2017 Between: 1.CHEVVETI VARALAXMl, W/0. CHANTI BABU @ CHANTI, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/0. THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE, S.RAYAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2.CHEWETI SANKARAMMA, W/0. YAKUB RAJU, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/0. THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE, S.RAYAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...APELLANT(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP PP, though Inspector of Police, Yelamanchili Circle, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant{S): 1.N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 Crl.A.Nos.ll84 AND 1218 OF 2017 The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) As both the Criminal Appeals are arising out of the same Sessions Case, they are being taken up together for “hearing” and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment. A.1 and A.2 in Sessions Case No.87 of 2013 on the file of the 2. Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1184 of 2017; where as A.4 and A.5 filed Crl.A.No.1218 of 2017. 3. The appellants along with A.3 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges i. 1®^ charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1 and A.2; ii. 2^^ charge was under Section 498-A IPC against A.1 to A.5; and iii. 3'^'^ charge was under Section 436 IPC against A.1 and A.2. Substance of the charge is that on 31.07.2012 all the accused used to harass one Chevvati Kumari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) both physically and mentally by demanding slabbed house standing in her name and on 31.07.2012 at about 4.00 P.M., A.1 and A.2 caused the death of the deceased by pouring kerosene from behind when she was cooking food on a country made woven with firewood and the entire dwelling house was completely destroyed. 4. 4 Crl.A.Nos.ll84 AND 1218 OF 2017 thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 436 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5. convicted A.1 and A.2 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ each and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted A.1 and A.2 under Section 436 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.5 under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for a period of three (03) years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. All the substantive sentences imposed against A.1 and A.2 were directed to run concurrently. 6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, A.1 and A.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.1184 of 2017; whereas A.4 and A.5 preferred Criminal Appeal No.1218 of 2017. Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the Appellants/ 7. A.1, A.2, A.4 & A.5 and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 5 t: Crl.A.Nos.ll84 AND 1218 OF 2017 The case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of 8. the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) All the accused are family members of the deceased. A.1 is the mother-in-law of the deceased, P.W.5 is the husband of the deceased, A.3 is the son of A.1, A.4 is the wife of A.3 and A.5 is the elder daughter-in-law of A.1. All of them are residents of Timmapuram village, S.Rayavaram Mandal. (ii) P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is the mother and P.Ws.3 and 4 are the relatives of the deceased respectively. P.W.6 is the neighbour. A.1 was having four sons and one daughter. The deceased along with her husband-P.W.5 is residing in a thatched house. A.1 along with her husband and younger son are residing in a slabbed house. The marriage between the deceased and P.W.5 was performed about 10 years prior to the date of incident. The deceased was demanding A.1 to give slabbed house to them as it was sanctioned in her name. Since then, ill feelings cropped up in between the deceased and A.1. A.1 to A.5 used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally. While so, on 31.07.2012 at about 4.00 P.M., the deceased took fire wood from the house of A.1, for which, A.1 and A.2 picked up quarrel with the Meanwhile, A.3 to A.5 came there and abused the deceased. deceased asking her to die. Later, the deceased went to her house. While the deceased was cooking food on the country made woven with 6 Crl.A.Nos.ll84 AND 1218 OF 2017 fire wood, A.1 and A.2 came from behind and poured kerosene. As firewood in the woven was burning, the deceased got flames to her body. Unable to bear the burns, the deceased jumped into a well situated behind her house. Then the villagers rushed there and brought the deceased out of the well and shifted her to the Government Hospital, Nakkapalli in 108 ambulance and after giving first aid, she was referred to KGH Visakhapatnam for better treatment, (iii) Having received hospital intimation, P.W.5-the learned Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam went to the hospital and recorded dying declaration of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.P12. On the same day, P.W.16 the Sub Inspector of police, S.Rayavaram Police Station on receipt of intimation from K.G.H., went and recorded dying declaration-Ex.P13. On the basis of Ex.P13, he registered a case in Crime No.113 of 2012 under Section 307 and 498-A read with 34 IPC. FIR is marked as Ex.P.14. On 02.08.2012 at about 8.00 A.M., P.W.16 visited the scene of offence, prepared an observation report in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 11. Observation report is marked as Ex.P15. He seized M.0.1 ash, M.0.2 sticks, M.0.3 partially burnt kerosene tin On 04.08.2012, while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Section of Law was altered from Section 307 to Section 302 and 436 read with 114 IPC. Altered FIR is marked as Ex.P17. On the same day, P.W.17 visited the scene of offence. Thereafter, he visited KGH where the dead body was lying in under Ex.P15. 7 Crl.A.Nos.ll84 AND 1218 OF 2017 mortuary. He got the dead body photographed under Ex.P18 through P.W.16. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 at the hospital. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws.8 to 11. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P20. He sent the dead body of deceased for post-mortem examination. P.W. 18-Professor in Andhra Medical College conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was “due to burns”. He issued post-mortem certificate under Ex.P21. P.W.19 is the doctor who treated the injured stated that the percentage of the burns received by the injured was 95%. (iv) On 12.08.2012 P.W.17 arrested A.1, A.3 to A.5 in the presence of P.Ws.12 and 13 and they were remanded to judicial custody. On 30.09.2012 he arrested A.2 in the presence of P.Ws.11 and 14 who was remanded to judicial custody. After receiving dying declarations and after receiving all the documents, he filed charge sheet. 9. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 marked Exs.P.1 to P.23 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 3. On behalf of the defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. 10. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. Crl.A.Nos.ll84 AND 1218 OF 2017 11. Relying on the dying declarations-Exs.P12 and Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants PI 3, the learned as aforesaid. 12. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 13. As seen from the record, all the material prosecution witnesses including parents and relatives of the deceased prosecution case and they were declared of evidence available did not support the as ‘hostile’. The only piece on record is two dying declarations which were Ex.P12 has been recorded by the learned Junior Civil Judge (P.W.15) and in Ex.P12, it is stated that A.1 marked as Exs.P12 and PI3. A.2 and A.4 poured kerosene and set her to fire. The reason for pouring kerosene and setting her to fire was explained stating that in the morning she has taken fire wood from the house of A.1. It is also stated in Ex.P12 that the accused were jealous as P.W.5 used to give his earnings to the deceased. Coming to Ex.P13-another dying declaration, it is stated that A.3 to A.5 quarreled with the deceased because of the property disputes and also for taking fire wood from the In Ex.P13 it is stated that A.1 and A.2 behind and poured kerosene while she house of A.1. came from her was cooking in front of the country made woven, resulting in catching fire to her. In Ex.P13 it i stated that because of IS pouring kerosene and as the country made was burning, she received flames to her body, demand for the house is concerned, the same has not been stated i woven So far as the in 'A 9 «v Crl.A.Nos.ll84 AND 1218 OF 2017 EX.P13. The cause for pouring kerosene is only firewood. There number of inconsistencies in both dying declarations. are There cannot be any dispute if dying declaration is made by the deceased and the same inspires confidence of the court and the can be relied. As there are number of inconsistencies in both the dying declarations, some corroboration is legitimately required from the material prosecution witnesses. Unfortunately, all the witnesses including the parents and relatives of the deceased turned ‘hostile’. As such, two dying declarations made by the deceased under Exs.P12 and PI 3 do not inspire confidence of this Court. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside. 14. same 15. In the result, both Criminal Appeals are allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in Sessions Case No.87 of 2013 dated 12.09.2017 and the appellants/A.1, A.2, A.4 & A.5 found not guilty for the offences under Sections. 302, 436 and 498-A IPC. As the appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 were already released on bail by order, dated 21.02.2024, they are directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, and complete the formalities as per the guidelines enunciated in Batchu Rangarao and are others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 10 Crl.A.Nos.l 184 AND 1218 OF 2017 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011). Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Since the appellants/A.3 & A.4 were already granted bail at the stage of admission, their bail bonds stand cancelled automatically. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR r. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, (with record) 2. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Yelamanchili Circle, Visakhapatnam District. 5. The Station Flouse Officer, S. Rayavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Fligh Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri N Ravi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi (for dispatch of LC record) 9. Three CD Copies TK TAC HIGH COURT DATED:20/03/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.1184 & 1218 of 2017 15 MAY 2nj5 . Current aeciion . f ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS