1 KSR, J & AHHS, J Crl.R.C..No.418 of 2008 APHC010081842008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3566] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 418/2008 Between: 1. PALADUGU DAVID RAJU, S/O D.FRANCES, R/O KHAZA VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI (M), GUNTUR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MANDE RAJESH CHANTI 2 OTHERS, S/O ISSAC, R/O SANKURIVARIPET, PEDAKAKANI (V & M), GUNTUR DIST. 2. BANDLAMUDI LALITHA, D/O DIBBAIAH, R/O SANKURIVARIPET, PEDAKAKANI (V & M), GUNTUR DIST. 3. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto file this Crl.R.C., against the Judgment passed by the learned IX Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur in S.C.No.382 of 2006, dated 13.11.2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Dr.MALLADI KOTESWARA RAO 2 KSR, J & AHHS, J Crl.R.C..No.418 of 2008 2. Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. I V N RAJU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: 3 KSR, J & AHHS, J Crl.R.C..No.418 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THIS THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.418 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Today, when the matter is taken up, the counsel appearing on either side states that during the pendency of the Criminal Revision Case, respondent No.2 died and the revision was already dismissed as abated against respondent No.2 / A2. Therefore, the present proceedings are taken up only in so far as respondent No.1 / A1 is concerned. 2. Questioning the judgment on the acquittal passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, dated 13.11.2007 in S.C.No.382 of 2006, the de facto complainant-P.W.1 filed the present Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against respondent Nos.1 and 2 / A1 and A2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were tried by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) under Section 304-B and alternatively under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. 4 KSR, J & AHHS, J Crl.R.C..No.418 of 2008 3. Substance of the charge is that on 23.02.2006, at about 06:00 p.m., A1 poured kerosene on his wife, by name Mande Bhagyalakshmi @ Marry (hereinafter referred to as <the deceased=) and set fire on her, demanding additional dowry, thereby causing her death and committing an offence punishable under Section 304-B, alternatively under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused by judgment dated 13.11.2007. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: i) The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Pedakakani. A2 is the junior maternal aunt of A1. A2 brought up A1. About eight months prior to the date of incident, the marriage of the deceased was performed with A1. At the time of the marriage, an amount of Rs.55,000/- was given to A1 apart from giving a gold ring. After sometime, both the accused started harassing the deceased and demanding additional dowry. ii) On 23.02.2006 at about 06:00 p.m., A1 demanded the deceased to bring some amount from her parental house for repair of his auto. The deceased refused his demand. While so, A1 took the deceased into the house, poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. Hearing the cries of the deceased, the neighbors also gathered. A1 and the neighbors put off the flames and A1 shifted her to Government General Hospital, Guntur. 5 KSR, J & AHHS, J Crl.R.C..No.418 of 2008 iii) On the same day at about 10:00 p.m., P.W.9-the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, received intimation-Ex.P.7 from the hospital, immediately P.W.9 went to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration- Ex.P8 from the injured. In Ex.P8, the deceased has disclosed that she caught fire accidentally while lighting the stove. It is also stated that A1 came and put off the flames and shifted her to Government General Hospital, Guntur in an auto rickshaw. iv) On the same day, P.W.10-Head Constable of Pedakakani Police Station, having received the intimation from the hospital, went there and recorded a statement at about 10:30 p.m. The said statement is marked as Ex.P11. In Ex.P11 also, the deceased has stated that she caught fire accidentally while lighting the stove and hearing her cries her husband came, put off the flames and shifted her to the hospital with the help of P.W.6. On the basis of Ex.P11, P.W.10 registered a case in Crime No.26 of 2006 under the caption >Woman Burns?. v) While so, on 04.03.2006, P.W.9-the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur received another intimation-Ex.P9 from the hospital. On receipt of the said intimation, P.W.9 went to the hospital and recorded the statement-Ex.P10 from the deceased at about 08:15 p.m. In this third dying declaration, the deceased has stated that A1 poured kerosene and set fire to her. Thereafter, the neighbors put off the flames and she was shifted to the hospital by P.W.6. On the basis of this third dying declaration, P.W.14-Sub 6 KSR, J & AHHS, J Crl.R.C..No.418 of 2008 Inspector of the Police, Pedakakani altered the FIR to Sections 498-A and 307 r/w 34 IPC on 09.03.2006. vi) While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 10.03.2006. After receipt of death intimation-Ex.P19, PW.14 altered the FIR to Sections 304-B and 302 r/w 34 IPC. The altered FIR is marked as Ex.P20. vii) During the course of investigation, P.W.14 recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.11 and another. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P6. On 11.03.2006, the Sub Divisional Police Officer-P.W.13 took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report-Ex.P5. viii) On 04.04.2006, P.W.13 arrested both the accused, who were remanded to Judicial custody. On 06.04.2006, he secured the presence of prosecution witnesses and recorded their statements. In the meanwhile, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. ix) P.W.12-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Forensic Medicine, Vijayawada, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined that the cause of death was due to complications of extensive burns. He issued post-mortem certificate- Ex.P17. After receipt of all the documents and completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed the charge sheet. 7 KSR, J & AHHS, J Crl.R.C..No.418 of 2008 5. In support of his case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, marked Exs.P1 to P20 and exhibited MOs.1 to 3. 6. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence. 7. As the material witnesses turned hostile and there are two inconsistent dying declarations, the learned Judge acquitted the accused by way of the impugned Judgment. 8. Heard Dr. Malladi Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri I.V.N. Raju, learned counsel for the accused and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing Respondent No.3 / State. 9. We have perused the entire material on record. All the material witnesses examined by prosecution did not support the prosecution and they were declared as hostile. 10. P.Ws.1 and 2 are none other than the parents of the deceased. Their evidence is only to the effect that the accused used to harass the deceased demanding additional dowry. As seen from their evidence, they did not complain to anyone about the so-called harassment prior to the date of incident. Even the deceased did not whisper anything in the first dying declarations, Exs.P8 and P11. 8 KSR, J & AHHS, J Crl.R.C..No.418 of 2008 11. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is silent with regard to whether there was any panchayat held between the accused and the deceased touching the so called harassment for the sake of additional dowry. There are three dying declarations, i.e. Exs.P8, P10 and P11. Ex.P8-dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Officer-P.W.9 on 23.02.2006. It is immediately after the incident. In Ex.P8, the deceased has clearly stated that she caught fire accidentally while lighting the stove. 12. The second dying declaration was recorded by P.W.10-Head Constable, Pedakakani Police Station on 25.02.2006. The said dying declaration was marked as Ex.P.11. In Ex.P11 also, the deceased has clearly stated that she caught fire accidentally while lighting the kerosene stove. Thereafter, there was no investigation. Even the Investigating Officer did not record the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 13. While so, P.W.9-the Judicial Officer received another intimation-Ex.P9 from the hospital. After receipt of Ex.P9, the Judicial Officer- P.W.9 went to the hospital and recorded another dying declaration-Ex.P10 from the deceased. But, the reason for recording the same has not been stated by the prosecution. In the said dying declaration-Ex.P10, the deceased has stated that A1 poured kerosene and set fire to her as she did not bring additional dowry. Though the incident took place on 23.02.2006, till 04.03.2006, the deceased did not state anything against the accused. Though another dying declaration-Ex.P10 was made on 04.03.2006, till 9 KSR, J & AHHS, J Crl.R.C..No.418 of 2008 09.03.2006 the Investigating Officer-P.W.14 has not proceeded with the investigation. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 10.03.2006. It is only thereafter that the FIR was altered to Sections 304-B and 302 r/w 34 IPC. 14. In the Ex.P10-dying declaration, the deceased has also not stated anything as to why she is giving the second dying declaration and as to why she did not disclose the commission of the offence by the accused in the first dying declaration. As such, there are two inconsistent versions stated by the deceased in Exs.P8, P10 and P11. Apart from these three dying declarations, there is no other evidence on record, as the neighbours turned hostile. As the material prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the dying declarations Exs.P8, P10 and P11 are inconsistent and Ex.P10 does not inspire the confidence of the Court, as the same is contrary to the dying declarations Exs.P8 and P11. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Judge and there is no illegality or impropriety in the judgment of the trial court. 16. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur in Sessions Case No.382 of 2006 under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., dated 13.11.2007. 10 KSR, J & AHHS, J Crl.R.C..No.418 of 2008 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date: 03.03.2026 Knr 11 KSR, J & AHHS, J Crl.R.C..No.418 of 2008 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL RC No.418 of 2008 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.SURESH REDDY) Date: 03.03.2026 Knr