Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 433 (AP)

Poola Ramesh Babu v. State of A. P.

2014-03-19

L.N.REDDY, M.S.K.JAISWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The accused in this case if at all, are the policy makers, who made the liquor available at every place, almost any time, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Just to accumulate more and more revenue for it, the State has brought about a situation, where, its subjects, who are potential workers, employees, or agriculturists, are made to become slaves of intoxicants, and to commit heinous crimes, under the influence thereof. 2. The appellant herein, who is from a weaker section of the society, is the sole accused in S.C. No. 379 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. He used to depend upon his daily labour for livelihood. His marriage was performed with the Venkatewaramma of Mutylamapadu Village, in the year December, 2007. As is the case with hundreds and thousands of youth mainly from the weaker sections in the State, he too is said to have become a slave to the vice of drunkardness. A1 is said to have suspected character of his wife, hardly within days, after the marriage. On 15.03.2008, his wife is said to have gone for coolie work, whereas, the accused came to the house in drunken condition. Both of them had meals, and at 10.00 p.m., the accused is said to have started quarreling with his wife, and poured kerosene upon her. Feeling threat to her life, the deceased ran away from the house, but the accused is said to have chased her, and threw a lighted matchstick on her. The deceased caught fire, and received burn injuries. Though the fire was extinguished, the burns were severe, and she was shifted to the Government hospital, Koilakuntla. 3. P.W. 9, the Doctor, who treated her, gave intimation to the P.S. Koilakuntla. After registering a case in Crime No. 130 of 2008, the Head Constable of the Police Station, P.W. 12 went to the hospital, and recorded the statement, Ex. P10 from the deceased. Since the condition of the deceased was becoming serious, she was shifted to the Government hospital, Kurnool. On receiving information about the incident, the father of the deceased, P.W. 1 went to Kurnool, and there, he submitted a complaint under Ex. P1. He incorporated in Ex. P11, the information said to have been furnished by his daughter, during the course of discussion. On receiving information about the incident, the father of the deceased, P.W. 1 went to Kurnool, and there, he submitted a complaint under Ex. P1. He incorporated in Ex. P11, the information said to have been furnished by his daughter, during the course of discussion. The deceased breathed her last on 19.03.2008, while undergoing treatment at Kurnool. 4. The provision in the F.I.R. was altered; the inquest and Postmortem were conducted. A charge sheet alleging offences punishable under Section498A and 302 IPC, was filed. The trial Court framed the charges and the trial was conducted. 5. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 13 were examined, and Exs. P1 to P11 were filed. M.O. 1, Kerosene tin, was also taken on record. Through its judgment dated, 06.04.2009, the trial Court held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and imposed punishment of imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. The trial Court acquitted the accused, of offence punishable under Section 498A. 6. Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the accused submits that even if one goes by Ex. P10, the dying declaration recorded by P.W. 12, it is evident that the fire was doused by none other than the accused, and at the most, it may be a case of causing bodily harm to the deceased by the accused in an intoxicated condition. He submits that the one reported on the fateful day was the solitary incident, and the matrimonial life of the couple, did not witness any other instances of cruelty. He further submits that the version presented by P.W. 1, on the basis of alleged inter-action with the deceased, cannot be believed. He further submits that there was no eye witness to the incident, and the trial Court ought to have extended the benefit of doubt, to the accused. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that hardly within few months from the date of marriage, the deceased suffered death in the hands of the accused, and no interference is warranted, with the judgment rendered by the trial Court. She contends that when the deceased and the accused alone were in the house, the latter took advantage of the situation, poured kerosene on the former and set her on fire. She contends that when the deceased and the accused alone were in the house, the latter took advantage of the situation, poured kerosene on the former and set her on fire. It is also pleaded that the deceased struggled with the serious burns for about four days, and no inconsistency whatever, was noticed in what she has stated in Ex. P10. 8. The unfortunate incident occurred hardly within three or four months after marriage, between the accused and the deceased, late in the night on 15.3.2008. The dying declaration, Ex. P10, recorded by P.W. 12 the Head Constable, reveals the circumstances, under which, the incident occurred. The deceased stated that she is one of the five children of her parents, and after her marriage with the deceased, she was living by doing coolie work. She did not make any reference to previous difference of opinion. On 15.3.2008 the deceased is said to have come in a drunken state, and after they took meals, he started quarreling with her suspecting her character. He is said to have abused, and beat her, and thereafter, poured kerosene. She further stated that she came out of the house, but the accused chased her, and lit a match stick, and threw it upon her, resulting flames. To this extent, it is not difficult to discern the cruelty of the deceased. The reason is that neither any procedural, nor any factual inconsistency, is pointed out in Ex. P10. 9. If what is stated above alone, was the content of Ex. P10, the appeal preferred by the accused could have been straight away dismissed, particularly, when Ex. P10 is supported by the evidence of P.W. 1, the father of the deceased; notwithstanding the fact that the neighbours, who were examined as P.Ws. 2 to 4, were declared hostile. P10. 9. If what is stated above alone, was the content of Ex. P10, the appeal preferred by the accused could have been straight away dismissed, particularly, when Ex. P10 is supported by the evidence of P.W. 1, the father of the deceased; notwithstanding the fact that the neighbours, who were examined as P.Ws. 2 to 4, were declared hostile. However, the deceased was so truthful that she proceeded to state as under: ....On 15.3.2008 night at about 10.00 p.m. my husband i.e., Poola Ramesh Babu came to the house in drunkan state and after taking meals he quarreled with me as usual by suspecting my character, abused me, beat me and poured kerosene on my body, on the fear, I came out of my house, immediately my husband Ramesh Babu lit a match stick and thrown on me, resulting flames were raised on my body, then I raised cries, my husband poured water on me and put off the flames and the surrounding persons also put off the flames......" 10. The underlined portion indicates that once the accused has seen the deceased in flames, his intoxication disappeared at once, and made an effort to save his wife, and accordingly, poured water. It only discloses that he behaved like a beast towards his wife, only on account of the intoxication, and he did not have any pre-mediated plan to murder his wife. This is a typical case which fits into Part-I of Section 304 IPC. He did know that pouring kerosene, and lighting the deceased on fire, would result in death. At the same time, he did not have the intention to kill her, as is evident from the fact that he himself doused the fire, and the deceased was alive, for five days. Therefore, even while holding the accused as guilty of causing the death of the deceased, we take the view that it is a case which fits into Part-I of Section 304 IPC. 11. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, modifying the conviction of the deceased to be the one under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. and modifying the sentence to be the one of Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years. The sentence as to fine ordered by the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in S.C. No. 379 of 2008 shall remain as it is. 12. The sentence as to fine ordered by the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in S.C. No. 379 of 2008 shall remain as it is. 12. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Partly Allowed