APHC010237972018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1210/2018 Between: KELAM CHANDRAMOULI, R/O.D.NO.147, FLAT NO.2 SATELLITE CITY, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, CT.NO.3564 ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF A P, rep. by its Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police station, E.G. District, through Public Prosecutor, high Court Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.M CHALAPATI RAO 2.LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.1210 of 2018 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.322 of 2013 on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. 2. The 1st charge is under Section 498-A IPC and the 2nd charge is under Section 302 IPC. 3. Substance of the charge is that the accused used to harass his wife Kelam Satyavathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) subjecting her to cruelty both physically and mentally suspecting her fidelity and on 10.12.2012 at about 9.50 A.M. he poured kerosene on her and set her to fire with a match stick, and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to injuries on 11.12.2012, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections. 498-A and 302 IPC. 4. After completion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the accused under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the accused/appellant filed the present appeal. 3 Crl.A.No.1210 of 2018 5. Case of prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Rajahmundry. The deceased was also resident of Rajahmundry and she is none other than the 2nd wife of the accused. P.W.1 is younger brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the daughter of accused through his first wife. P.W.4 is none other than the mother of the deceased. The marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed on 11.03.2012. The accused was blessed with two daughters through his first wife. As the first wife of the accused died due to ill health, he married the deceased as 2nd wife. Ever since the marriage, the accused started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally suspecting her fidelity. (ii) While so, in the morning of 10.12.2012, P.W.1 was informed by the neighbours stating that the deceased was in flames. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the house of the accused, found his sister with burn injuries lying on the ground. Immediately, he took the injured to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry in an ambulance. Having received the hospital intimation, the Head Constable-P.W.10 who was in charge at out-post of Government Hospital went to the hospital on the same day at about 5.30 P.M. and recorded the statement-Ex.P13 from the injured. He sent the same to Bommuru Police Station on the point of the jurisdiction. On the same day, at about 5.45 P.M., P.W.9-the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, having received hospital intimation-Ex.P11, went to the hospital and recorded the statement-Ex.P12 from the injured. (iii) P.W.11-Inspector of police, Bommuru Police Station, having received Ex.P13, registered a case in Crime No.343 of 2012 under 4 Crl.A.No.1210 of 2018 Sections. 307 and 498-A IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P14. Immediately, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also recorded statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and others. (iv) On the next day i.e., on 11.12.2012 he visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report-Ex.P3 in the presence of P.W.5 and another. He also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P15 at the scene of offence. He also got photographed the scene of offence through P.W.8. Exs.P6 to P9 are the photographs and Ex.P10 is the C.D. He seized M.Os.1 to 8 at the scene of offence under Ex.P13. (v) While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. After receiving death intimation, P.W.11 altered the section of law to Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. Altered memo is marked as Ex.P16. Immediately, he proceeded to the Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.6 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. He recorded statements of P.Ws.4 and 6. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (vi) P.W.7-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Rajahmundry conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was shock due to extensive superficial burns. (vii) On 14.12.2012 at about 10.00 A.M P.W.11 apprehended the accused near Diwancheruvu. He sent the material objects to FSL Hyderabad through a letter of advice-Ex.P17. FSL report is marked as Ex.P18. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. 5 Crl.A.No.1210 of 2018 6. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P1 to P18 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 8. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence found against him. On behalf of defence, D.W.1 is examined and Ex.X1 is marked. 8. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 coupled with two dying declarations-Exs.P12 and P13, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 9. Heard Sri M.Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Venkata Ramana, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 10. We have carefully perused the entire evidence on record. 11. P.W.1 is none other than the brother of deceased and P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the minor daughter of the accused through his 1st wife. P.Ws.1 and 4 in their evidence have categorically stated that the accused used to harass the deceased suspecting her fidelity. Though initially P.W.2 deposed that the accused used to harass the deceased, she did not support the prosecution and she was declared hostile. P.Ws.1 and 4 in their evidence specifically deposed that the accused used to harass the deceased suspecting her fidelity. So far as the offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, there are no eye witnesses and the prosecution rests its case on two dying declarations-Exs.P12 and P13. Ex.P12 dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Officer-P.W.9. P.W.9 in his evidence has categorically stated that at about 5.45 P.M. on 10.12.2012 he went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P12 dying declaration. He also obtained certification on Ex.P12 to the effect that 6 Crl.A.No.1210 of 2018 the injured was conscious and coherent while recording the statement. In Ex.P12 the deceased has stated as under:- “Her marriage was performed with the accused on 11th March of this year. He used to harass me suspecting my fidelity and used to beat me. Today in the afternoon, he poured kerosene on me and set fire. Further that the accused on suspicion over me, he did like that. Except herself and the accused, nobody was present in the house”. 12. In Ex.P13-dying declaration recorded by P.W.10, the same version was stated by the deceased. As such, both the dying declarations-Ex.P12 and P13 are consistent and the deceased has specifically stated that the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. In both the dying declarations, the deceased has stated that the accused used to beat her suspecting her fidelity. On the fateful day the accused beat her and poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. As such, there is nothing to disbelieve both these two dying declarations marked as Exs.P12 and P13 as they are consistent to each other. Further, as seen from the material on record, the incident took place in the house of accused and no explanation is forth coming from the accused in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house. Admittedly, there is no other adult person except the accused and the deceased in his house. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Judgment reported in P.V.Radhakrishna vs. State of Karnataka1 held as follows:- "14. In the light of the above principles, the acceptability of alleged dying declaration in the instant case has to be 1 AIR 2003 SC 2859 7 Crl.A.No.1210 of 2018 considered. The dying declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and must like any other evidence, satisfy the Court that what is stated therein is the unallowed truth and that it is absolutely safe to act upon it. If after careful scrutiny the Court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration. 15. There is no material to show that dying declaration was result of product of Imagination, tutoring or prompting. On the contrary, the same appears to have been made by the deceased voluntarily. It is trustworthy and has credibility. 16. It was observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0707/2002: 2002CriLJ4095 that where the medical certificate indicated that the patient was conscious, it would not be correct to say that there was no certification as to state of mind of declarant. Moreover, state of mind was proved by testimony of the doctor who was present when the dying declaration was recorded. In the aforesaid background it cannot be said that there was any infirmity. Further if the person recording the dying declaration is satisfied that the declarant is in a fit medical condition to make a dying declaration then such dying declaration will not be invalid solely on the ground that is not certified by the doctor as to the condition of the declarant to make the dying declaration. [See Rambai v. State of Chhattisgarh MANU/SC/0856/2002: 2002CriLJ4712 ]. 17. The residuary question whether the percentage of burns suffered is determinative factor to affect the credibility of the dying declaration and the improbability of its recording. There is no hard and fast rule of universal application in this regard. Much would depend upon the nature of the burn, part of the body affected by the burn, impact of the burn on the faculties to think and convey the 8 Crl.A.No.1210 of 2018 idea or facts coming to mind and other relevant factors. Percentage of burns along would not determine the probability or otherwise of making dying declaration. As noted in Rambai's case (supra) physical state or injuries on the declarant do not by themselves become determinative of mental fitness of the declarant to make the statement. 18. On the facts of the present case the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in placing reliance on the dying declaration for the purpose of convicting the accused-appellant. We find no infirmity to warrant interference in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.” 14. Having analyzed both the dying declarations carefully coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, the prosecution could able to prove that it is the accused who caused the death of deceased. Further, there is nothing on record to show that Exs.P12 and P13 were result of product of imagination, tutoring or prompting. In fact, not even a suggestion to that effect was made. 15. Having analyzed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that it is the accused who caused the death of deceased. So far as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, absolutely there is no material to show that the accused used to harass the deceased with unlawful demand. The only allegation is that the accused used to harass the deceased suspecting her fidelity. 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to allow the present appeal in part by setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. However, we are inclined to confirm the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 9 Crl.A.No.1210 of 2018 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 19.12.2014 in Sessions Case No.322 of 2013 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the appellant/accused is acquitted for the said charge. However, the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302 IPC is hereby confirmed. As the appellant/Accused was released on bail by an order, dated 27.12.2024, in terms of the order, dated 02.11.2016, passed by the Combined High Court in Batchu Rangarao and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011), he is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining portion of sentence forthwith. Failing which, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, is directed to secure his presence by issuing warrants and commit him to prison to serve the remaining portion of sentence. It is needless to state that the period of imprisonment already undergone by him shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dt.08.01.2026 SAB 10 Crl.A.No.1210 of 2018 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Criminal Appeal No.1210 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 08.01.2026 SAB