Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 449 (TS)

Jagiri Parsharamulu v. State Of Telangana

2024-07-05

P.SAM KOSHY, SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Sambasiva Rao Naidu, J.) 1. The sole accused in the sessions case vide S.C.No.436 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar seeks to assail the judgment of the trial Court dated 30.06.2014 and questioning the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial Court in the above referred sessions case, filed this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. 2. As per the brief averments of the charge sheet that was filed by the Inspector of Police, Husnabad against the appellant, it was specifically alleged that one Smt. Jagiri Uma (hereinafter be referred as deceased) was married to the appellant herein about (9) years prior to 12.01.2013. At the time of said marriage, the parents of the deceased have presented sufficient dowry and household articles, soon after her marriage, the deceased joined the appellant, they lead happy marital life for about (8) years, during which they were blessed with two daughters and a son. The appellant started harassing his wife physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity and she has informed the said harassment to her elder brother who is examined as PW1 before the trial Court. At the instance of PW1 and the deceased, panchayats were conducted before village elders who advised the appellant not to harass the deceased. However, there was no change in his attitude and he continued the same physical and mental harassment and he used to abuse his wife in filthy language. 3. The prosecution has alleged that on 11.01.2013 at about 08:30 a.m., the appellant had a quarrel with his wife, abused her in filthy language, beat her with hands and by dousing her with kerosene and set her ablaze Even though she was immediately shifted to hospital, she succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on 19.01.2013. 4. The prosecution has alleged that on the date of the above incident i.e., on 11.01.2013 PW1 sent his son who is examined as PW3 before the trial Court, to bring the deceased to her parents' house on the eve of Sankranthi festival. But, by the time he reached the house of the deceased, he found his paternal aunt with burn injuries. He requested the neighbours to shift her to hospital, again rushed to his father and informed the above incident. But, by the time he reached the house of the deceased, he found his paternal aunt with burn injuries. He requested the neighbours to shift her to hospital, again rushed to his father and informed the above incident. PW1 rushed to the hospital and came to know from his sister as to what had occurred at the house and he has presented a report to police on 12.01.2013. The police have registered a case for the offence under Section 498-A and 307 IPC vide crime No.9 of 2013 and took up investigation. The Sub Inspector of Police who was examined as PW14 visited the hospital, recorded the statement of the deceased (who was alive then) and also filed a requisition before PW15 i.e., VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal and got the statement (dying declaration) of the deceased recorded. Soon after receiving the death information of the deceased, the police have altered the section of law to 302 IPC and proceeded with further investigation. The police have completed the other formalities and filed charge sheet against the appellant herein. 5. The trial Court has framed a charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant and as he denied the charge, proceeded with the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 16 and marked Exs.P1 to P16. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and entire incriminating material placed by the prosecution was put to the appellant, he denied the same once again. The appellant himself was examined as DW1 and examined (2) more witnesses on his behalf. In order to show that he himself tried to extinguished the fire when the deceased was suffering burn injuries, the appellant has marked the medical record namely., medical certificate and prescriptions as Exs.D1 to D3. 6. The trial Court having appreciated the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted him under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also directed him to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for (1) month. 7. 1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for (1) month. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the trial Court committed an error by finding that death of deceased was homicidal and failed to consider that appellant had no motive to kill the deceased. The trial Court failed to consider that PW1 is an interested witness. No much weight can be given to such evidence. The trial Court failed to consider that appellant himself received injuries while trying to put off the fire. The trial Court did not appreciate the fact that there was delay in lodging the FIR and that there was delay in sending FIR to the Court. The material witnesses who are neighbours of the appellant and who are examined as PWs 2 and 4, did not support the allegations in the charge sheet. Therefore, trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant herein, thereby, sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant while advancing arguments has attacked the delay in lodging the report on the ground that though it is alleged by the prosecution that PW3 was present at the time of offence and informed the same to his father who was examined as PW1 within no time, and in spite of the fact that police station is in a yards' distance from his house, and also close to the hospital, Husnabad, there was delay of more than (24) hours in lodging the complaint. There was delay in dispatching the FIR to the concerned Magistrate. Therefore, it creates a doubt whether really there was such an offence committed by the appellant, or a false complaint was filed after due deliberations. PW1 who has presented a complaint alleging that his sister committed suicide, subsequently withhold the said complaint and got registered the case on the next date of the alleged attempt on the life of the deceased, attributing murder to his brother-in-law. Therefore, the delay in lodging the report and sending the FIR to the Court is fatal to the case of prosecution. Therefore, the delay in lodging the report and sending the FIR to the Court is fatal to the case of prosecution. The learned counsel also argued that the trial Court failed to consider that the appellant who was examined as DW1 categorically deposed before the trial Court that he tried his best to save his wife who attempted to commit suicide and in the said process, he suffered injuries and his version was further supported by DWs 2 and 3, but trial Court failed to appreciate the important evidence of DWs 1 to 3 and came to an incorrect conclusion. Learned counsel while attacking the charge that was framed against the appellant and while reading the evidence of material witnesses, has argued that though it is the allegation against the appellant that he has committed this offence by suspecting the character of his wife, the evidence placed by the prosecution indicates that when the appellant was talking over a phone, his wife (deceased) questioned him as to whom he was talking. Thereby, the question of appellant himself suspecting his wife and setting her ablaze does not arise. 9. Learned counsel further argued that the material received from the hospital at Husnabad to which the deceased was first taken was suppressed by the prosecution. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record that the prosecution suppressed the material evidence and filed a false case against the appellant. But, the trial Court on a wrongful appreciation of the evidence, sentenced the appellant imprisonment for life. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment. 10. However, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the case of prosecution has argued that the moment PW3 noticed his paternal aunt with burn injuries rushed to his father and before that he requested the neighbors to arrange a vehicle for shifting the injured to hospital. Thereafter, PW1 had been to hospital, but they were in hurry of saving the life of the deceased. Therefore, they could not have concentrated on lodging a report before the police. But, the fact remained that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the deceased and got the dying declaration recorded though PW15. The statement made by the deceased before the Investigating Officer and learned Magistrate, clearly indicates the way in which she suffered burn injuries at the hands of her husband. But, the fact remained that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the deceased and got the dying declaration recorded though PW15. The statement made by the deceased before the Investigating Officer and learned Magistrate, clearly indicates the way in which she suffered burn injuries at the hands of her husband. Therefore, the delay in lodging the complaint cannot be treated as fatal in the present case. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor further argued that PW1, PW3 and wife of PW1 who is examined as PW5 categorically stated the prior incidents to the date of offence and the oral evidence of material witnesses clearly shows that the appellant used to suspect his wife and he used to harass her both mentally and physically and on the date of incident when she questioned him as to whom he was talking over a phone, the appellant enraged by said questioning and set the deceased ablaze. Therefore, the trial Court rightly appreciate the oral evidence coupled with the dying declaration made by the deceased, rightly convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding, thereby sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. There is no dispute about the marriage between appellant and deceased. The record clearly indicates that by the time PW3 visited the house of the appellant herein, he found his paternal aunt in flames and immediately he proceeded to his house and informed about the offence. Therefore, PW1, PW3 and PW5 rushed to the hospital. The statement made by the deceased before the Investigating Officer and also before PW15 clearly shows that she suffered burn injuries when the appellant doused her with kerosene and set her on fire. 13. Learned defense counsel while questioning the statement recorded by PW15 has submitted that in the entire statement there was no date on which the statement said to have been recorded. But, a seal supposed to have been affixed by tappal section is visible on the dying declaration. Therefore, it indicates that the statement was not recorded on the said date as deposed by PW15, but the same was manipulated. But, this particular contention cannot be accepted for two reasons. But, a seal supposed to have been affixed by tappal section is visible on the dying declaration. Therefore, it indicates that the statement was not recorded on the said date as deposed by PW15, but the same was manipulated. But, this particular contention cannot be accepted for two reasons. The evidence of PW15 clearly indicates that after receiving a requisition from police, she rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of deceased after her satisfaction about the mental condition of the patient and after obtaining an endorsement from the duty medical officer. 14. Perhaps the learned Magistrate could collect the printed proforma from tappal section while proceeding to the hospital, therefore, the seal available on the dying declaration, cannot be doubted. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has no necessity to manipulate the documents or to depose in favour of the prosecution. 15. As could be seen from the statement recorded by PW15 vide Ex.P13 it appears that when the learned Magistrate questioned the deceased as to what happened, she has informed the Magistrate that her husband doused her with kerosene after having a quarrel in connection with some problems. She has also informed the Magistrate that the appellant was keeping a kept-mistress and had a quarrel with her. It is true, in the entire statement she did not inform the Magistrate that the appellant himself set her to fire. But, in the statement recorded by PW14 vide Ex.P10 she has categorically stated that the appellant developed illegal intimacy with another lady and when he was talking to some other person on phone, she enquired him, thereby appellant abused her in filthy language, doused her with kerosene and set her to fire by using firewood. She has also stated before PW14 that at the time of said incident, PW3 visited the house and she was shifted to hospital with the help of neighbours. Therefore, simply because there was no mention in Ex.P13 the appellant set her ablaze, it cannot be held that the accused did not commit any offence by ignoring other evidence. 16. It is true the appellant who was examined as DW1 has claimed that by the time of offence, he was not at the place where his wife made attempt to commit suicide and having come to know about the same from his daughters, he rushed there and tried to extinguish the fire. 16. It is true the appellant who was examined as DW1 has claimed that by the time of offence, he was not at the place where his wife made attempt to commit suicide and having come to know about the same from his daughters, he rushed there and tried to extinguish the fire. The daughters through whom he said to have received information about the alleged attempt of suicide by his wife were not examined. It would be very easy for the appellant to depose that he was away from the scene of offence and the evidence of DWs 2 and 2 cannot be accepted. 17. The main contest of the appellant is against the delay in lodging the complaint with police. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution indicates that soon after the neighbors found, the deceased made an attempt to commit suicide, information was sent to PW1 and he lodged a report before the police that his sister attempted to commit suicide, but later they suppressed the said report and filed another complaint against the appellant. The learned counsel has submitted that a false case has been foisted against the appellant to pressurize him to part with the property. 18. However, the record placed before the Court which includes the statements of the deceased clearly show that it is the appellant who killed his wife by setting her ablaze. There is nothing to disbelieve the statements of deceased soon after her admission to the hospital and before her death. She had no motive to falsely implicate her husband. Therefore, the prosecution is able to prove the offence committed by the appellant herein. As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.