Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 397 (AP)

Chandan Prasad Guptha v. State Of A. P.

2005-04-21

BILAL NAZKI, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2005
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE sole accused in S. C. No. 179 of 2001 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, ranga Reddy District, at L. B. Nagar, is the appellant herein. He was charged with the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. , for causing the death of his wife, Manithi, by pouring kerosene and setting her, on fire on 4-8-1999. He was also charged for the offence under Section 498-A I. P. C. Through its judgment dated 18-11-2002, the Trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. , and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE deceased and the appellant were married about 12 years prior to the date of incident. Both of them hail from buxer District of Bihar State. The appellant came to Hyderabad for livelihood and was working in a Factory at Balanagar. He used to go to Bihar on certain occasions, and now and then, the deceased used to come to Hyderabad. ( 3 ) ON coming to know that the appellant contracted a second marriage, the deceased came to Hyderabad on 2-8-1999. On 4-8-1999, PW-9, an immediate neighbour and certain others found the deceased, on fire, in the residence of the deceased. The door was broke open and the fire was extinguished. She was admitted in the Gandhi Hospital. PW-10, Sub-Inspector of Police, Balanagar, recorded the statement of the deceased (Ex. P-12), at 2. 00 p. m. , on 4-8-1999. The deceased stated that she came to Hyderabad on 2-8-1999, on coming to know that the appellant contracted the second marriage, and thereafter, the accused started beating her. She has also stated that at about 10. 00 a. m. , on 4-8-1999, the appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire saying that she must die, and had gone away by bolting the door from outside. On the basis of Ex. P-12, crime was registered and investigation was undertaken. On a requisition being given, the Additional j. F. C. M. , Kothapet, West and South, saroornagar, recorded the dying declaration, marked as Ex. P-8; two endorsements made by the Duty Doctor, before and after the dying declaration was recorded, are marked as Exs. P-6 and P-7. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined PWs. On a requisition being given, the Additional j. F. C. M. , Kothapet, West and South, saroornagar, recorded the dying declaration, marked as Ex. P-8; two endorsements made by the Duty Doctor, before and after the dying declaration was recorded, are marked as Exs. P-6 and P-7. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 11 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-14. Out of them, PWs. l to 3 turned hostile. PW-4 is a witness to the scene of offence panchanama; pw-6 is the panch at inquest; PW-7 is the father of the deceased; PWs. 10 and 11 are Investigating Officers, and PW-9 is the witness, residing in the immediate neighbourhood of the accused, PW-8 is the doctor, who conducted the autopsy. ( 5 ) SRI E. Ayyapu Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is virtually no evidence to connect the appellant to the death of the deceased. He contends that the Trial court rested its findings mostly on the dying declarations, ad in view of the fact that several witnesses have turned hostile, and having regard to the discrepancies in the dying declarations, depositions of witnesses etc. , the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant. Learned senior Counsel also submits that the appellant was not at the scene of offence at the relevant point of time and the dying declarations are the result of tutoring of the deceased, ( 6 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the two dying declarations, Exs. P-8 and P-12 are consistent and nothing was elicited through PWs. 5 and 10 respectively, who have recorded the said dying declarations, to doubt their credibility, or the veracity of the declarations. He further contends that the so-called discrepancy in the evidence of PW-9, is hardly of any consequence, and that no interference is warranted with the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court against the appellant. ( 7 ) THERE is no eye-witness to the incident and much would depend upon the credibility to be attached to the two dying declarations of the deceased, namely, Ex,p- 8 recorded by PW-5 and Ex. P-12, recorded by PW-10. ( 8 ) PW-4 is a witness to the scene of offence panchanama. PWs. l to 3, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 cr. P-12, recorded by PW-10. ( 8 ) PW-4 is a witness to the scene of offence panchanama. PWs. l to 3, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 cr. P. C. , during the course of investigation, have turned hostile in the Court. PW-6 is a panch witness during inquest. PW-7 is the father of the deceased. He stated that he gave his daughter in marriage to the accused and presented a sum of Rs. 20,000/-; motorcycle, a gold ring and a radio, at the time of marriage. According to him, the accused continued to live in Hyderabad and used to visit the deceased at his place, now and then, and that the deceased also used to go to the house of the accused in bihar, occasionally. He stated that in the year 1999, his daughter came to know that the accused married another lady by name kaliya, and thereupon, she came to hyderabad, to question the accused. He said that he received a letter from the brother of the accused, informing that the deceased reached Hyderabad, and some days thereafter, he received a message from police that the deceased was burnt by the accused, and thereafter she died. In the cross-examination, he sated that he received the letter from the police on 14-8-1999 about the death of his daughter. He admitted that he did not have any personal knowledge about the second marriage of the accused. But, at the same time, he denied the suggestion that the accused did not contract the second marriage. ( 9 ) PW-9 is an important witness in this case. He is the immediate neighbour of the accused, at Hyderabad. He deposed that on 2-8-1999, the deceased came to hyderabad and on 4-8-1999 at about 12. 00 Noon, when he was sleeping in his house, he heard cries. When he came out, he found a mob near the house of the accused, and that the deceased was burning inside the room. According to him, he knocked the door of the house, and in the meanwhile, it has fallen down, when some others pushed it. He sated that two persons poured water on the deceased and thereafter she sat in an open water-tank. He claims ignorance as to how the deceased sustained injuries. This witness was not cross-examined. According to him, he knocked the door of the house, and in the meanwhile, it has fallen down, when some others pushed it. He sated that two persons poured water on the deceased and thereafter she sat in an open water-tank. He claims ignorance as to how the deceased sustained injuries. This witness was not cross-examined. ( 10 ) PW-11 is the Inspector of Police, who continued the investigation after taking over the same from PW-10. He has spoken about the conducting of postmortem thereof. He has also arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody. The charge-sheet is said to have been filed by one P. V. Krishnaiah, who came in his place, on transfer. ( 11 ) NOW the evidence of PWs. 5 and 10, who recorded the dying declarations of the deceased, needs to be discussed. PW-5 is the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. He received a requisition in Ex. P-5 from pw-10, on 4-8-1999 at about 4. 30 p. m. , to record the dying declaration of the deceased. He reached the hospital by 5. 10 p. m. On being satisfied that the patient was in a position to give statement, and after certification to that effect in Ex. p-6, by the duty Doctor, he started recording the statement. Ex. P-8 is the dying declaration recorded by him. It is beneficial to extract the same. "my husband Chandan set ablaze. My husband contracted second marriage and he poured kerosene and set ablaze". ( 12 ) AFTER recording the statement, he obtained thumb impression of the deceased. The declaration was recorded between 5. 10 and 5. 20 p. m. The Doctor examined the deceased, after conclusion of the recording of the declaration and certified through Ex. P-7 that she was conscious and coherent during the process. ( 13 ) EX. P-12 is the dying declaration recorded by PW-10, the Sub-Inspector of police. This was recorded at 14. 00 hours on the same day, i. e. about 3 hours before pw-5 recorded Ex. P-8. In his evidence, pw-10 stated that he received a telephonic information from Panchasheela Colony, balanagar, at 12. 00 Noon on 4-8-1999 to the effect that a girl sustained burn injuries, and soon thereafter, he proceeded to the spot and shifted the injured to the Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad. He proceeded to the hospital forthwith, and there, recorded ex. P-8. In his evidence, pw-10 stated that he received a telephonic information from Panchasheela Colony, balanagar, at 12. 00 Noon on 4-8-1999 to the effect that a girl sustained burn injuries, and soon thereafter, he proceeded to the spot and shifted the injured to the Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad. He proceeded to the hospital forthwith, and there, recorded ex. P-12, According to him, the deceased was conscious and coherent, when he recorded the statement and on the basis of the same, he registered the case and gave requisition in Ex. P-5 to PW-5. He has also stated that he conducted the scene of incident panchanama in the presence of pw-4 and seized a plastic can, MO-1 and burnt saree pieces, MO-2. In the cross examination, nothing substantial was elicited through him, to discredit his version. He denied the suggestion that he did not shift the deceased to the hospital, and that he conducted the scene of incident panchanama at 6. 00 p. m. He also denied the suggestion that the deceased was not conscious when he recorded Ex. P-12. ( 14 ) IN Ex. P-12, the deceased stated inter alia as under:"immediately after coming to know about his second marriage I came to Hyderabad three days back. Kaliya is also staying with chandan, When I asked him about his second marriage he scolded me and threatened to kill me, he harassed me physically beating me for two days. On 4-8-1999 at about 10 a. m. , again there was a quarrel between us. At about 10 a. m. , he poured kerosene on my body and set ablaze and asked me to die stating already he married second time, he poured kerosene on me and set fire and attempted to kill me, after setting fire he bolted the door from outside and ran away". ( 15 ) FROM a reading of Ex. P-12 recorded at 2. 00 p. m. , by PW-10, on the day of the incident, and Ex. P-8 which was recorded by PW-5 at 5. 00 p. m. , on the same day, it is evident that the deceased categorically and unequivocally stated that the accused poured kerosene on her body any set her ablaze. While Ex. P-12 is elaborate in content, Ex. P-8 is some what brief. This is attributable to the vast deterioration of the condition of the deceased. 00 p. m. , on the same day, it is evident that the deceased categorically and unequivocally stated that the accused poured kerosene on her body any set her ablaze. While Ex. P-12 is elaborate in content, Ex. P-8 is some what brief. This is attributable to the vast deterioration of the condition of the deceased. All the same, both the declarations are consistent and clear in their purport. Through a catena of decisions, the Hon ble supreme Court held that the dying declarations, which are consistent and reliable, can constitute the basis for conviction of an accused, even if not corroborated to any other evidence. The appellant was not able to shake the credibility of the witnesses, who recorded exs. P-8 and P-12, viz. , PWs. 5 and 10, respectively. ( 16 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel had strenuously contended that in Ex. P-12 it is stated that the door was bolted from outside by the accused; whereas the statement of PW-9 gives an indication that the door was bolted from inside. In effect, the learned Senior Counsel wants to draw the following inferences: (a) The fact that the door was knocked from outside, means that the door was bolted from inside. (b) Since the deceased alone was inside the room, it must be presumed that she bolted the door from inside. (c) The fact that the deceased was burning in a room, bolted from inside, must lead to a conclusion that she was attempting to commit suicide. ( 17 ) ON a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-9, who was not cross-examined, it is evident that such an inference cannot be drawn. PW-9 did not say that the door was bolted from inside. The relevant portion of the evidence reads as under: ". . . . . . The deceased was burning inside the room. I knocked the door of the room. Some others also knocked the door and the door had fallen down. . . . . . ( 18 ) IT was quite possible that even if the door was bolted from outside, in hurry and out of excitement, on seeing a woman burning inside, may have pushed the door, without verifying as to whether it was bolted from inside or outside. The door itself appears to be so feeble, that it has fallen with the push given by the persons, who gathered there. The door itself appears to be so feeble, that it has fallen with the push given by the persons, who gathered there. Even by stretching the process of reasoning to the limits of straining it, one cannot draw an inference, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel. ( 19 ) ONCE the two dying declarations recorded from the deceased are so clear and unequivocal, nothing more is needed, to connect the accused to the incident. It is not in dispute that the deceased came just two days earlier to Hyderabad from Bihar. It is not as if she came to know of any shocking news, to force her to commit suicide, only after she came to Hyderabad. It is only on coming to know of the second marriage, said to have been contracted by the appellant, that she came with a definite purpose and object of questioning him about it. If her mind was no weak, as to drive her to commit suicide, she was not required to come all the way from Bihar, to do just that. This Court does not find any doubt as to the involvement of the appellant herein, in the offence, so that the benefit thereof, could have been extended to the appellant. The appellant had resorted to the heinous crime of killing his wife, simply because he felt her to be an impediment in his relation with another woman. The Trial court discussed the matter from the proper perspective, and we do not find any basis to interfere with the same. ( 20 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed.