1 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2388 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2388 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Justice K.Suresh Reddy) The sole accused in S.C.No.430 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, at Gooty is the appellant. The appellant was tried by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that at about 05.00 AM on 28.05.2015, the accused poured kerosene on his wife by name D.Roj Mary (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) and set her fire who succumbed to injuries, while undergoing treatment in Government Hospital at Kurnool, on the same day at about 11.40 PM thereby committed offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 2 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2388 of 2018 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, briefly, is as follows: i) The accused is a resident of Yadiki Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District. The material prosecution witnesses are also residents of the same village. The deceased is none other than wife of the accused. PW.1 is the mother, PW.2 is the brother and PW.3 is the son of the deceased respectively. PW.4 and PW.5 are the neighbours of the accused. ii) Marriage between the accused and deceased was performed about 15 years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with two (02) male children. The accused was working as Health Supervisor, in Government Hospital, Dhone, Kurnool District. He used to visit the house once in a week. He was addicted to consume alcohol and used to harass the deceased on one pretext or the other. Due to unbearable harassment, the deceased informed the relatives who advised her to adjust and lead marital life. While so, on 27.05.2015, the deceased, accused along with their son- PW.3, slept in the middle room of their house. As the accused started scolding the deceased, she woke up and slept in the front room. At about 05.00 AM of 28.05.2015, the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. Unable to bear the flames, deceased raised hue and cry. On hearing the cries, neighbours gathered there and put off the flames. PW.1 and others came there and shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Tadipatri, from there the injured was shifted to the Government General 3 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2388 of 2018 Hospital, Kurnool, for better treatment. Having received the intimation from the hospital, PW.7-the then Head Constable, Yadiki Police Station, went to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and recorded a statement-Ex.P4, from the injured. He obtained endorsement of the doctor under Ex.P5 on the said statement. At about 09.00 PM on 28.09.2025, PW.9-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Yadiki Police Station received Ex.P4-report and registered a case in Crime No.45 of 2015, for the offence under Section 307 IPC. He issued copies of the FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P8. iii. On the next day, PW.9 received death intimation from the hospital. Having received the death intimation, he altered the section of law from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC and issued copies of the altered FIR to all the concerned. EX.P9 is the death intimation and Ex.P10 is the altered FIR. Having received the altered FIR, PW.10-the then Inspector of Police, Pamidi Circle took up investigation on 29.05.2015. On the next day, he went to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.5, blood relatives and mediators. He recorded statements of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.5. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P1. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence and seized MOs.1 to 5 in the presence of PW.6 and another. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination. 4 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2388 of 2018 iv. PW.8-the then Assistant Professor in Department of Forensic Medicines, Medical College, Kurnool conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to burns and its sequale. He issued Ex.P7-postmortem certificate. v. On 19.06.2015 at about 04.00 PM, PW.10 arrested the accused at Rayalacheruvu bus stop under a panchanama-Ex.P3, in the presence of PW.6. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW.10 laid charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.11, marked Exs.P1 to P10 and exhibited MOs.1 to 5. 6. On behalf of defence, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 8. Disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, PW.1-the de-facto complainant i.e., mother of the deceased filed the present Appeal. 9. Heard Sri K.Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for 2nd Respondent/de facto complainant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 5 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2388 of 2018 10. We have carefully perused and analyzed the entire evidence on record. 11. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness in the present case. The prosecution sought to prove the guilt of the accused with the aid of Ex.P4-the dying declaration recorded by PW.7-the Head Constable. PW.1 to PW.3 in their evidence has only stated that the accused used to harass the deceased, for one reason or the other. PW.1 and PW.2 further stated that while the injured was being taken to hospital, she informed them that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her on the morning of 28.05.2016. We perused the so called dying declaration-Ex.P4 recorded by PW.7. In the said dying declaration, the deceased has given every detail right from her marriage with the accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the declaration on two (02) grounds. The first ground was that Ex.P5 endorsement was taken from the doctor, subsequently at a belated stage. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has pointed out that the very same dying declaration was marked as Ex.D1, which does not contain the endorsement-Ex.P5 made by the doctor about the state of mind of declarant. Under Ex.D1, there was no certification by the doctor about the mental status of the declarant. But under Ex.P4, an endorsement was obtained under Ex.P5 subsequently. It seems at the time of filing of charge sheet, all the document were furnished to the accused and in the documents furnished to the accused there was no endorsement under Ex.P5. It seems 6 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2388 of 2018 realizing the mistake, the investigating agency must have obtained the said endorsement under Ex.P5, during the course of trial. As such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved Ex.P4. Coming to the second aspect, in the charge sheet, it was specifically mentioned that while the injured was undergoing treatment in Government General Hospital, Kurnool, LW.14-the then Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool went to the hospital and recorded a statement from the injured, but the said dying declaration recorded by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool has not seen the light of day. In fact, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool who recorded the dying declaration was cited as LW.14. For the best reasons known to them, LW.14 was not examined. Of course, the prosecution did not produce the dying declaration recorded by LW.14. While the said dying declaration recorded by LW.14 was marked as Ex.D2 through PW.10-the investigating officer. PW.10 in his evidence has categorically admitted that LW.14 has recorded the dying declaration from the deceased on 28.05.2015 itself. Though LW.14 was not examined by the defence, it was elicited through PW.10 that LW.14- Magistrate has recorded the dying declaration on 28.05.2015 itself. The said Ex.D1 was marked through PW.10. The said factum of recording Ex.D2 dying declaration by LW.14 was not in dispute. When we have gone through Ex.D2, it is observed that the deceased has not stated anything against the accused in her dying declaration-Ex.D2. The deceased has only stated that while she was sleeping, somebody has thrown kerosene on her and set her to fire. She did not even whisper anything against the accused. As such, 7 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2388 of 2018 there are two (02) inconsistent dying declarations on record. More weight will be given to the dying declaration recorded by the judicial officer. But the dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Officer-LW.14 was withhold by the prosecution. 12. In the case on hand, the deceased has not attributed anything against the accused under Ex.D2-dying declaration recorded by a judicial officer. As such, Ex.P4 does not inspire confidence of this Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the said dying declaration-Ex.P4 recorded by PW.7. Except the two dying declarations, there is no other material available on record. As such, the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be held to be unreasonable and the same needs no interference. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed, confirming the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu at Gooty in SC No.430 of 2015 dated 14.02.2018. No costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 24.12.2025 PSA 8 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2388 of 2018 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2388 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.SURESH REDDY) Date: 24.12.2025 PSA