Partly allowed

Rangala Neeladri, Kanchili Mandal., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Mar 2024CRLA/812/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal in part. It set aside the conviction for murder (IPC 302) and life sentence given due to insufficient injuries, finding no intention to kill. The appellant was reconvicted under IPC 304 Part-I and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence for Section 302 IPC were set aside. The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

Rangala Neeladri, Kanchili Mandal., Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR or•.1 11 V m

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.812 of 2015

¶5

Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment of VI Additional, District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, in S.C.No.113of2012, dated 27^'’ day of July, 2015.

¶6

Between:

¶7

Rangala Neeladri, S/o. late Tatayya, Aged 31 years, Reddika by caste, R/o. Jadupudi Village, Kanchili Mandal

¶8

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Amaravathi.

¶9

...Respondent/complainant

¶10

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶11

Petition filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed against the Petitioner/Accused in S.C.No. 113 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, Dated 27*^ day of July, 2015 and release the Petitioner on Bail in Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 2015 pending before this Hon’ble Court.

¶12

Counsel for the Appellant : Smt C. Vasundhara Reddy

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor The Court made the following:

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)

¶17

The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/sole accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, dated 27.07.2015 in S.C.No.113 of 2012 passed by the learned^VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta.

¶18

The appellant/accused was tried by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, under^two charges i.e., first charge was for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the second charge was for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

¶19

The substance of the charge is that prior to 12.09.2011 the accused subjected his wife Smt. Rangala Gowri (herein^after referred to as the “deceased”) to cruelty and on 12.09.2011 at about 3.00 p.m., he caused the death of the deceased, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC.

¶20

After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sompeta, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in^defaultto undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (06)^months.

¶21

¶22

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sompeta, found the appellant not guilty for the offence under Section^498-AIPC. 5. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:-

¶23

That the marriage of the deceased with the appellant/accused took place in the month of May-2009^asper Hindu caste, custom and usage; that after the marriage,^theyled happy marital life for a period of few months; that^whenthe deceased came to know about the appellant/accused being addicted to bad vices, she questioned the accused,^forwhichthe accused bore grudge and used to harass her; that the caste elders convened a meeting between the deceased and^accused; during the course of meeting, the accused gave promise^tothe elders that he will look after her well; that on the fateful day i.e., on 11.09.2011 at about 9.00 P.M., there ensued a quarrel between the deceased and accused; that on 12.09.2011^atabout 3.00 P.M when the deceased was sleeping in the middle^roomof the house, the accused came and closed the doors and^picked up a quarrel with the deceased; that during the brawl, the accused poured kerosene on her body and lit fire with^amatch stick; that the accused opened the doors and raised^cries;that the neighbours having heard the cries of the accused, came

¶24

¶25

there and later got admitted the deceased into the Government hospital, Sompeta; that PW-22-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sompeta, examined the injured and found 78-80% of burns on her body; that in view of the percentage of the bums,^PW-22 referred the injured to KGH, Visakhapatnam, for better treatment after giving first aid; that the injured^wasshiftedto KGH, Visakhapatnam on 13.09.2011 at about 2.10 A.M; that PW-23 admitted her and issued Certificate, which is marked as Ex.P-32. In the meanwhile, at about 5.30 p.m., on 12.09.2011, PW-25 having received the intimation from CHC, Sompeta,^went to the hospital and recorded the statement from the injured under Ex. P-31, which was duly certified by the doctor; that PW-25 returned to the Station and registered a case^inCr.No.78 of 2011 under Section 307 and 498-A IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P-34 is the copy of FIR. He again went to the hospital and recorded the statements of PWs-1, 2, 4 and 5; that he seized M.Os.2 to 4 under a cover of panchanama in the presence of PW-13 and another. On 13.09.2011 he went to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch-Ex.P-35^and recorded statements of PWs-6 to 13 and 18. He prepared^an Observation Report-Ex.P-22 in the presence of PW-15. He also got the scene photographed through PW-14. He seized

¶26

¶27

M.Os.l to 11 at the scene of offence in the presence of mediators; that further investigation was taken over by PW-21. 6. That on 16.09.2011 PW-21-Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanchili Police Station apprehend the accused in the presence of PW-15 and another at Railway Station, Kanchili. He^recorded confessional statement from the accused and arrested the accused under a cover of panchanama-Ex.P-23 in the presence of PW-10 and another. 7. In the meanwhile, on 12.09.2011 PW-18-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta, recorded a statement from the^injured. which is marked as Ex-P-27. On 19.09.2011 PW-24-Inspector of Police, Cheepurupalli took up further investigation. Having received the death intimation, he altered the FIR and sent requisition to PW-16 to conduct inquest over the dead^body;that accordingly, PW-16 conducted inquest over the dead body, which is marked as Ex.P-25. Thereafter, the body was^sentfor Post-Mortem examination through Corpus Constable-PW-20. PW-17-Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Andhra^Medical College, Visakhapatnam, conducted autopsy over the^deadbody on 19.09.2011 at about 3.30 p.m., and opined that the^causeof death was due to “septiceamic shock due to burns” and approximate time of death is about 12 hours prior to N-,

¶28

¶29

¶30

post-mortem examination. He issued post-mortem certificateEx.P-26. After completion of investigation, PW-24 filed charge sheet.

¶31

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1^to 25 and marked Exs.P-1 to 35 and exhibited M.Os. 1 to 14. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material against him.

¶32

Smt C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel appearing^for the appellant/accused strenuously contends that all the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The only evidence available on record is two dying^declarations i.e., one recorded by PW-18-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta, which is marked as Ex.P-27 and another recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police-PW-25, which is marked as Ex. P-31. Except these two dying declarations there^isnoother material incriminating the accused with the alleged^offence.

¶33

On the other hand, Sri S. Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses besides dying declarations clinchingly established^the guilty of the accused.

¶34

We have gone through the entire material on record.

¶35

¶36

It is trite that in both the dying declarations, the^deceased has stated that while she was sleeping in the room at about 3.30 p.m., on 12.09.2011 the accused came and poured kerosene on her and set her to fire. The deceased in her dying declaration has also stated that immediately after setting fire, the accused opened the doors, raised cries and called the neighbours, requesting them to save her. Immediately, the neighbours gathered there and engulfed the flames. In both the dying declarations, the deceased has also stated that^shewas taken to the hospital by the accused as well as the neighbours. As seen from both the dying declarations, it is at^{theinstanceof} the accused, flames were put off and she was taken^tohospital for treatment. As such, the intention of the accused^canbeseen that he intends to save the life of the injured. It^isnotthecase of the prosecution that the accused left the scene^aftersetting fire. Even the deceased also did not say in both her dying declarations that the accused ran away from the scene after setting her to fire.

¶37

In the above facts and circumstances, the conduct of^the accused can be taken into consideration after setting fire. Further, as seen from the medical evidence adduced through PW-17, the cause of death was due to “septiceamic shock”,^but

¶38

¶39

the Doctor did not say in his evidence that those bum injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court,^aninference that the burn injuries were sufficient in the ordinary^courseof nature to cause death so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC cannot be drawn. The said fact was enunciated by a catena of judgments of HonT>le Apex Court; one such is State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Narendra^.

¶40

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it can safely be held that the accused has no intention to kill the deceased but, in a fit of rage, he set her fire to the deceased and immediately intends to save the life of the deceased by calling the neighbours. It is the accused, who took the injured^tothe hospital also. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, the accused has no intention to kill the deceased. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned^Additional Sessions Judge is liable to set aside. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part^and the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/sole accused by judgment, dated 27.07.2015 in S.C.No.113 of 2012 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions

'(2016)3 see 62

"r-

Judge, Sompeta, for the offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby set aside, instead the appellant/accused is found guilty^forthe offence punishable under Section 304 Part-1 IPC and^sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (01) month. The period already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶45

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.

¶46

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶47

shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The VI Additional, District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District.(with records)

¶54

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta,^{SrikakulamDistrict.}

¶55

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Sompeta Police Station,^{SrikakulamDistrict.}

¶56

The Registrar(Judicial), High Court of A.P. at Amaravat. 6. One CC to Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of^{AndhraPradeshat} Amaravathi [OUT]

¶58

The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court^{ofA.P.atAmaravati.} 9. The Section Officer, Account Section, High Court^{ofA.P.atAmaravathi.}

¶59

Three CD Copies

TK ssb

/ /

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/03/2024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.812 of 2015

'X
AO 2 7 MAR 202^ m
■Jc ^
Current Section . ^

¶67

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

Rangala Neeladri, Kanchili Mandal., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangala Neeladri, Kanchili Mandal., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambadipudi Jyothi, Prakasamd Dt and Anr., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Avdesh Singh at Abdesh, Anantapur Dt., Vs State, Sho, Roddam Ps., Rep Pp.

Duddu Lazar, Prakasam Dt and 9 Otrs., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Sri Kondepogu Prbhudeva at Nehemiya, Prakasam., Vs the State, Rep Pp and Anr, Thr:Inspector of Police.

Shaik Jalaluddin, Spsr Nellore Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Martha Yogamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh