Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 519 (AP)

Vodde Jayaramulu v. State Of A. P.

2000-07-20

D.S.R.VERMA, R.M.BAPAT

body2000
RAMESH MADHAV BAP AT, J. ( 1 ) THE sole accused in Sessions Case No. 322 of 1995 which was decided by the learned sessions Judge, Anantapur is the appellant herein. The accused-appellant was tried for an offence punishable under Section 498-A ipc. On evidence, the learned Judge found him not guilty, and therefore, he was acquitted of the said charge. The accused- appellant was further tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The learned Judge found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant. ( 2 ) THE substance of the charge against the accused was that prior to 25-2-1994 the accused started harassing his wife Suseelama by beating and abusing her. On 25-2-1994 at about 6. 00 p. m. in his own house in jakkireddipalli Vilalge, the accused alleged to have poured kerosene on the person of his wife Suseelammma and set her on fire. The deceased died at about 4. 50 p. m. , on 1-3-1994 in the Government Hospital at kalyandurg. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story can briefly be narrated as follows: the marriage of the accused and the deceased was celebrated eight months prior to the date of incident. The accused was having an affair with one lady named sakamma. The accused used to come home late and beat the deceased. On 25-2-1994 at about 6. 00 p. m. , the accused poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her on fire. The deceased came out of the house with flames and on seeing the flames, pw4 and one Sanjeevanna, brother of the accused extinguished the fire by pouring water on the deceased and then they took her to Government Hospital at Pavagada. PW1 happened to be the father of the deceased. He was informed by one V. Gangadhar about the incident. He was also informed that the deceased was admitted in government Hospital at Pavagada and on getting the aforesaid information, PWs. l and 3 proceeded to Pavagada. ( 4 ) PW13, Medical Officer, working at Pavagada Government Hospital examined the deceased at about 10. 30 p. m. , on 25-2-1996 and found 60 per cent superficial burns. He was also informed that the deceased was admitted in government Hospital at Pavagada and on getting the aforesaid information, PWs. l and 3 proceeded to Pavagada. ( 4 ) PW13, Medical Officer, working at Pavagada Government Hospital examined the deceased at about 10. 30 p. m. , on 25-2-1996 and found 60 per cent superficial burns. He gave first aid and referred the injured (deceased) to expert Hospital. PW13, also sent medical intimation to police. ( 5 ) IT is further case of prosecution that PW15, Head Constable of Kalyandurg police Station received medical intimation, ex. P16 and on receipt of the said intimation, he proceeded to the Government Hospital at Kalyandurg at about 6. 50 p. m. and recorded the statement of the deceased in the presence of the duty Medical Officer. Ex. Pl 7 is the statement given by the deceased and Ex. P18 is the endorsement made by the duty Doctor. Then, he returned to police Station and sent the statement of the injured recorded by him under Ex. Pl 7 and the endorsement of the duty doctor, ex. P18 to Kambadur Police Station. ( 6 ) PW 16 Head Constable, Kambadur police Station received Exs. P16 and P17 and basing on the same, registered a case in crime No. 14/94 against the accused under sections 498-A and 307 IPC. He dispatched copies of FIR to all the concerned. Thereafter, he went to Government Hospital at about 11. 45 p. m. and recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161 cr. PC. He also examined PWs. l to 3 and recorded their statements. ( 7 ) ON 26-2-1994, PW12, Munsif magistrate, Kalyandurg on receiving requisition, proceeded to Government hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. Ex. Pl2, is the dying declaration. The duty doctor also made an endorsement on the dying declaration to the effect that the patient is conscious while recording the statement. Ex. Pll, is the endorsement of the Medical Officer. ( 8 ) ON 27-2-1994 at about 6. 00 a. m. , pw16, Head Constable proceeded to jakkireddipalli and prepared the panchanama of the scene of offence. He seized kerosene tin, MO1. He also prepared seizure and observation report under Ex. P22. He recorded the statements of PWs. 4 to 9. He seized MO2 burn sari and MO3 one red colour sari. Ex. P23 is the seizure panchanama. 00 a. m. , pw16, Head Constable proceeded to jakkireddipalli and prepared the panchanama of the scene of offence. He seized kerosene tin, MO1. He also prepared seizure and observation report under Ex. P22. He recorded the statements of PWs. 4 to 9. He seized MO2 burn sari and MO3 one red colour sari. Ex. P23 is the seizure panchanama. ( 9 ) ON 1-3-1994 at about 4. 50 p. m. , the deceased died in the Government hospital, Kalyandurg. On receipt of death intimation, PW16 altered the section of law from 307 to 302 IPC. ( 10 ) ON 2-3-1994 PW17, Inspector of police, Kalyandurg took up the investigation. PW10 Mandal Revenue, Officer, Kalyandurg held inquest over the deadbody of the deceased in the presence of PW11. Ex. P10 is the inquest report prepared by PW10. ( 11 ) ON 2-3-1994 at about 4. 00, PW14 the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Kalyandurg government Hospital conducted autopsy over the dead body of the decased. Ex. P15 is the post mortem certificate. According to the Doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to burns. ( 12 ) ON 29-5-1994, PW17, Inspector of police arrested the accused. Thus, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid after deleting the name of accused no. 2. ( 13 ) THE defence of the accused was one of total denial. ( 14 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 17. Out of these witnesses, PWs. 1, to 9 did not support the prosecution, and therefore, they were treated hostile. The learned Judge appears to have accepted Exs. P12 and P17, dying declarations recorded by PW12 and PW15 respectively and convicted the accused- appellant. ( 15 ) IN order to prove the fact that the deceased died homicidal death, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of pw10 who had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW11. The inquest report is placed on record at Ex. P10. After inquest was over, the dead body was handed over to PW14, who was working Civil Assistant Surgeon, government Hospital, Kalyandurg, who on receipt of requisition, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, and noticed the following burnt areas:" 1. Extended from right thigh upto 20 cm. , below knee joint in front and back of the leg. Redden areas present. 2. Extended from right thigh upto 20 cm. , below knee joint in front and back of the leg. Redden areas present. 2. Burnt area extended from left thigh upto 20 cm. , below the knee joint in front and back Redden areas present. 3. Burnt area present over the left lower abdomen. Redden area present. 4. A horizontal burnt area over the upper abdomen above the umbilicus both back and front, size about 4" width. Redden area present. 5. Irregular burnt area present over the breasts. 6. Burnt area present over both scapular region, area of redding present. 7. Burnt area present over both buttocks and extended on to the back of the thighs. 8. Irregular burnt areas on the the right cheek. 9. Irregular burnt area present over the left arm and fore-arm and wrist. 10. Bunit area present on the right arm and right palm. 11. Two horizontal incision at the level of both ankles present size 2" x 1/2. " ( 16 ) ON internal examination he noticed the following internal injuries :"body opened from chin to sympsis public. No fracture of hyoid bone. Treachea and oesophagus congested. Stomach: contains brownish colour fluid about 300 ml. Mucosa congested. Heart: congested with clotted blood normal in size. Lungs: Congested. Liver: congested. Spleen: enlarged and congested. Kidneys: congested and cloudy. Uterus: congested and empty. Bladder: empty. Skull: no fracture of bone. Brain: congested. " ( 17 ) HE opined that the deceased died due to shock because of burns within 20 to 24 hours prior to his post mortem examination. He issued Ex. P15, postmortem certificate. ( 18 ) CONSIDERING the evidence led by the prosecution, we hold that the prosecution was able to prove that the deceased did die homicidal death. ( 19 ) THE next point that arises for our consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilty of the accused?. ( 20 ) AS stated earlier, PWs. l to 9 did not support prosecution. We have the evidence of PW12, Magistrate who had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, which is produced on record at ex. P12. We have also one more dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable, pw5 on the strength of which the offence came to be registered, which is produced at ex. Pl7. We have the evidence of PW12, Magistrate who had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, which is produced on record at ex. P12. We have also one more dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable, pw5 on the strength of which the offence came to be registered, which is produced at ex. Pl7. In both the dying declarations, the deceased has given elaborate reasons as to why she was burnt by the accused. It is stated that the accused was involved with one lady named Sakamma, and therefore, he wanted to get rid of the deceased. On the date of incident the accused poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her on fire. ( 21 ) THOUGH there are no eyewitnesses to the incident, the dying declarations recorded by the Head Constable as well as the learned Magistrate are practically one and the same. In both the declarations, the deceased had given consistent version. There is no reason to discard the dying declarations given by the deceased on the background that her father, mother and brother turned hostile. ( 22 ) THE learned Senior Advocate mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant submitted at the Bar that the Doctor, PW13 who had examined the deceased first on her admission in Government Hospital at pavagada noted in the Accident Register that the deceased died accidentally. With this factual position on record, the learned Counsel submits that it is the first version which exactly contradicts the dying declarations recorded by the learned magistrate as well as Head Constable, and therefore, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused-appellant. ( 23 ) WE are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Counsel. The doctor very casually and negligently has put the word accidentally . He has not written in the Accident Register as to what was the source of this information, and therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased had told him that she sustained bum injuries accidentally. The doctor very casually and negligently has put the word accidentally . He has not written in the Accident Register as to what was the source of this information, and therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased had told him that she sustained bum injuries accidentally. We are drawing this conclusion for the reason that the deceased was brought to the Hospital by her husband-accused and his brother, and therefore, there is every reason to believe that the husband of the deceased and the brother of the husband of the deceased might have pressurised the doctor to put an endorsement to the effect that the deceased sustained burn injuries accidentally. ( 24 ) WE have one more reason to come to the same conclusion. The Doctor (PW13) had sent accident intimation to the Police as well as learned Magistrate, which are produced on record as Exs. P16 and P13. In both the intimations given by the Doctor, surprisingly he has not his endorsement that the deceased sustained burn injuries accidentally. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the doctor (PW13) did not understand his duty properly. He took the case very casually, though the deceased was struggling for life. ( 25 ) UNDER these circumstances, we hold that the entry in Accident Register (Ex. P14) is totally unreliable piece of evidence and therefore, it has got to be rejected. ( 26 ) CONSIDERING the two dying declarations placed on record, we are convinced that the accused is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal by confirming the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused- appellant. ( 27 ) THE criminial appeal is accordingly dismissed.