APHC010307852018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1347/2018 Between: 1. KURUBA MOHAN, R/O.KANCHISAMUDRAM VILLAGE, RODDAM MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...APELLANT AND 1. STATE OF AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the state of Telangana and the state of AP., Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to the present criminal appeal is being filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Honourable the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur in SC.No. 351 of 2017 dated 18-01-2018 for the following among other. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accued in SC.No. 351 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions 2 Judge, Hindupur and grant bail, pending disposal of the criminal appeal in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 release the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentenced imposed in S.C.No. 351 of 2017 dt. 18-01-2018 on file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Ananthapur District in SC.No.351 of 2017 dated 18.01.2018 and enlarge the Petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Crl.A. No. 1347 of 2018 on the file of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of Justice, and pass Counsel for the Apellant: 1. K SRINIVAS 2. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court delivered the following: 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THIS THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1347 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.351 of 2017 on the file of the Court of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge under the following charges: First charge was under Section 366 I.P.C. Second charge was under Section 302 I.P.C and the last charge was under Section 506 I.P.C. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 10.12.2016 the accused kidnapped one Talari Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as „the deceased‟) and kept her with him and on 14.12.2016 at about 1.00 p.m. he set fire to the deceased and in the same process he threatened P.Ws.2 to 4 with dire consequences, and 4 while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries, thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections 366, 302 and 506 I.P.C. 3. After completion of trial, the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Sections 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Further convicted the accused under Section 506 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 366 IPC. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) The accused, as well as the material prosecution witnesses, are residents of Kanchisamudram Village, Roddam Mandal, Anantapuramu District. P.W.1 is the husband, and P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.1. The marriage between P.W.1 and the deceased took place about 8 years prior to the date of incident, and the couple blessed with two daughters and a son. The accused used to tease and harass the deceased, demanding her to have sexual intercourse with him. While so, on 10.12.2016, the deceased left her house informing P.W.1 that 5 she was going to the hospital for treatment. But she did not return home on the same day. P.W.1 searched for her and finally traced her on 13.12.2016, at Penukonda, in the company of the accused. P.W.1 brought her back to his house on the evening of 13.12.2016. As rumours spread in the village that the deceased had gone along with the accused, she felt insulted. On the next day i.e., 14.12.2016 at about 1.00 P.M., the deceased went to the house of the accused, which is situated opposite to her house, along with a kerosene tin with an intention to commit suicide. She poured kerosene on her body, stating that because of his behaviour and conduct, her family got a bad name in the village. She threatened the accused, stating that she would commit suicide. Then the accused grew wild, took a matchbox and lit the same and threw it on the deceased. Having received burns, the deceased raised cries. Immediately, P.Ws.2 to 4 came there and put off the flames. They shifted her to the Government Hospital, Penukonda. At about 4.30 P.M. on the same day, P.W.9 received Ex.P4 intimation from the hospital. Having received Ex.P4, P.W.9 went to Government Hospital, Penukonda and recorded the statement Ex.P5 from the injured. He forwarded Exs.P4 and P5 to the Roddam Police station. At about 6.45 P.M., P.W.10, Sub-inspector of Police, Roddam Police Station, received Exs.P4 and P5 and registered a case in Crime No. 64 of 2016 under Sections 366 and 307 I.P.C. He issued copies of F.I.R.s to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P7. Immediately, he went to Government Hospital, Penukonda and came to know that the injured was shifted to 6 Government Hospital, Anantapuramu, for better treatment. On the next day, at about 8.30 A.M., P.W.10 visited the scene of the offence and prepared an observation report Ex.P2 in the presence of P.W.6 and another. He seized M.Os.1 to 3 at the scene of offence under Ex.P2. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P8, at the scene of offence. ii) On 16.12.2016 at about 7.00 A.M. he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators. iii) While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 25.12.2016. Having received the death intimation, Ex.P9, P.W.10 altered the section of law from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. Altered FIR is marked as Ex.P10. Immediately, he visited the Government Hospital, Anantapuramu and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.7 and another. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. iv) P.W.11 Assistant Professor, Government Medical College, Anantapuramu, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to the consequence of burns, especially due to septicemia. He issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P11. v) After collecting all the documents and after completion of the investigation, the then Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P1 to P11 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 3. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. 7 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P5 and P6, the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State. 9. We have carefully scrutinised the entire material available on record. 10. P.W.1, who is none other than the husband of the deceased, admittedly was not present at the house. He went to graze sheep. P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that at about 4.00 P.M., he received a phone call from his brother P.W.4 and came to know that the deceased sustained burns. P.Ws.2 to 4 categorically stated that at about 1.00 P.M. on 14.12.2016, the deceased went to the house of accused along with a kerosene tin and poured on her body, intending to commit suicide. P.Ws.2 to 4 in their evidence categorically stated that on 10.12.2016, the deceased went along with the accused and did not return. It is only on 13.12.2016, P.W.1 could locate the deceased in Penukonda, where she was found in the company of the accused. Immediately, P.W.1 and 4 brought her back to the house. PW.2 and 4 in their evidence have categorically stated that because of said incident, the 8 reputation of the family of the deceased was spoiled in the village, as all the villagers came to know that she went along with the accused on 10.12.2016 and remained with him till 13.12.2016. As such, the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 was to the effect that the deceased intended to commit suicide and with that purpose, she went to the house of the accused along with a kerosene tin, where she poured kerosene on her body. So far as the accused setting fire to the deceased with a match stick, there is no evidence on record, except the dying declarations Exs.P5 and P6. As such, P.Ws.2 to 4 did not witness the accused setting fire to the deceased. 11. In Ex.P5 dying declaration recorded by P.W.9, the deceased stated as follows: “That is, on 10.12.2016, while my husband was at home, while I was going to the hospital, Mohan threatened me and took me away from our village. Yesterday, on 13.12.2016, our elders and their elders found our whereabouts, came to us and stated that it was wrong to do such a thing. Then I went home with my husband. Neither my in-laws nor my husband utters a word and finds fault with my behaviour. Having felt upset as Mohan took me along with him, due to which my family lost reputation, on 14.12.2016, at about 1.00 p.m. when nobody was present in her house, I took a kerosene tin and went in front of Mohan's house, poured kerosene and threatened him. The said Mohan, stating that as to who are you to threaten him, brought a matchbox, lit a fire and threw it on me. When I raised cries as the flames spread over my body, my brother-in-law Gopal, my daughter Kalavathi my younger aunt Venkata Lakshmamma came and put out 9 the fire. They called a private ambulance and shifted me to the Penukonda Government Hospital for treatment.” 12. So far as, dying declaration Ex.P6 recorded by the Mandal Executive Magistrate at about 4.30 P.M., which was marked through the Duty Doctor P.W.8 is concerned, for the best reasons known to them, the said Mandal Executive Magistrate, who recorded Ex.P6, was not examined. P.W.8 doctor who endorsed on Ex.P6, was examined and said Ex.P6 was marked through him. But P.W.8 did not speak to the contents of Ex.P6. As such, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P6 as the person who recorded the said dying declaration was not examined. As such, there remains only the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Ex.P5 dying declaration recorded by P.W.9. 13. Admittedly, the deceased in her dying declaration Ex.P5, has stated that, having felt insulted in the village, she went in front of the house of the accused and poured kerosene on herself and threatened him. The accused having enraged by the act of the deceased, took the matchbox and lit the matchstick and threw it on the deceased, who received burn injuries. P.Ws.1 to 4 in their evidence stated that, having heard the cries of the deceased, they rushed to the spot and put off the flames and shifted her to the Government Hospital, Penukonda. 14. Admittedly, there was no premeditation, and there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. It is the deceased who went in 10 front of the house of the accused, poured kerosene on her body and threatened the accused. It is only thereafter, the accused grew wild, lit the matchstick and threw it on the deceased. As such, the accused never intended to kill the deceased; it was only when the deceased threatened the accused, he lit a matchstick and threw it on her body. As there was no premeditation on the part of the accused and as he never intended to kill the deceased, the offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the combined High Court in Gottipati Hanumayamma v. State Represented by Public Prosecutor1, held as follows: “40. On the above analysis, this Court finds that neither the intention of A1 not her knowledge can be said to be of the requisite degree or vigour to bring the case within clauses 3 or 4 of Section 300 IPC. At best, her intention and knowledge would border upon the degree requisite under Section 299 (b) and (c) IPC, that is, her intention would be to the extent of mere likelihood of her act causing death and her knowledge would also be to the same extent. The Sessions Court however did not note the distinction in the degree of intention and knowledge whereby a case would fall either under Section 300 IPC or under Section 299 IPC and baldly concluded that once her guilt was made out, A1 must be convicted under Section 302 IPC straightaway. On the strength of the aforestated analysis, we do not find it to be so simple. 41. In summation, we find that A1 is guilty of culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.” 1 2018 1 ALD (Cri) 407 11 16. In the case on hand, even according to the prosecution, there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased, and also, there was no premeditation on the part of the accused. Admittedly, it is the deceased who went in front of the house of the accused and poured kerosene on her body; it is only thereafter the accused lit the matchstick stick threw it on the deceased. As such, the offence committed by the appellant squarely falls under Section 304 Part-II IPC. 17. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 302 and 506 I.P.C against the appellant by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur is liable to be set aside. 18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur in S.C.No.351 of 2017 under Sections 302 and 506 I.P.C. are hereby set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, while maintaining the fine amount. As the appellant was released on bail by order dated 01.03.2023, 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 his presence by issuing Non-bailable warrants and commit him to prison for serving the remaining portion of 12 sentence. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the accused shall be given set off, as per the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _______________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 14.10.2025 SNI 13 137 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Criminal Appeal No.1347 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 14.10.2025 SNI 14