Dismissed

Maddirala Rama Swamy, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC9 Jul 2012CRLA/1019/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence for Sections 498-A and 302 IPC regarding a woman killed by her husband by pouring kerosene. The High Court examined the dying declarations and evidence, holding that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower court's judgment.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC.

Maddirala Rama Swamy, Vs The State of A.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD

¶6

CRL. A. NO. 1019 OF 2008

¶7

Between:

¶8

Maddirala Rama Swamy

¶9

..... Appellant

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court, Hyderabad

¶12

..... Respondent

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad)

¶15

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 384 of 2007 by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Prakasam at Ongole on 2.5.2008. The appellant is the sole accused who is convicted for the offences under Secs.498-A and 302 IPC.

¶16

2. According to the prosecution, the marriage of the deceased took place with the accused about eleven years back and they were blessed with two sons and a daughter. The accused was addicted to alcohol and used to harass the deceased in connection with dowry. While so, on the intervening night of 17/18.5.2007 at about 1.00 hours the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and while she was sleeping, he poured kerosene on her and set fire to her with an intention to do her away with the life. On the hue and cry made by the deceased, her two sons Maddirala Mahendra and Maddirala Malakondaiah and one Maddirala Narasamma, who were sleeping outside the hut rushed into the house along with PWs. 5, 7 to 9 and saw the incident. Thereafter, the victim was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Kandukur for treatment in the auto of PW-10, where PW-14 gave first aid to her and after sending information to Kandakur

¶17

Police Station, referred her to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Ongole for better treatment. The statement of the victim recorded by PW-18, Assistant SubInspector, at Government Hospital, Kandukur, was forwarded to Ponnaluru Police Station on the point of jurisdiction and on receipt of the said statement and the hospital intimation, PW-19, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr. No.27 of 2007 under Sec.498-A and 307 IPC on 18.5.2007. Thereafter PW-19 visited the scene of offence, examined witnesses and recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of PWs.13 and another, seized a five liters plastic tin with 1½ liters of kerosene, burnt pieces of saree, petty coat and blouse under a cover of panchanama, drew rough sketch of the scene of offence, photographed the same by PW-11 and also recorded the statements of the deceased, PWs 1 to 3 and 6. On intimation from the hospital, PW-17, Chief Judicial Magistrate, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. On 25.7.2007, the deceased while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the burn injuries at the Government Hospital, Ongole and on receipt of the death intimation, PW-19 altered the section of law to 302 IPC. Thereafter, PW-20 took up investigation, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW-13 and others and sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination. PW-16,

¶18

Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, has opined that the deceased died due to cardio pulmonary failure due to septicemia due to burns and issued post mortem certificate, Ex.P-18 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.

¶19

3. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charges under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges.

¶20

4. The prosecution, in order to establish the said charges, examined PWs.1 to 20 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-30 and M.Os. 1 to 4. No oral evidence was adduced in defence but Ex.D-1 was marked on behalf of the accused.

¶21

5. Taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Sec.498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused was further convicted for the offence under Sec.302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

¶22

6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the

¶23

accused filed the present appeal.

¶24

7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could be able to establish the charges under Secs.498-A and 302 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

¶25

8. Learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellant has pleaded that there are no eyewitnesses to incident and the dying declarations recorded by PWs.17 and 18 cannot be relied upon, as they were brought into existence as the accused was in judicial custody and the statements of PWs. 1 to 3 with regard to the deceased pouring kerosene and setting fire to the deceased being hearsay, cannot be relied upon and the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

¶26

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand pleaded that the dying declaration recorded by PW. 17 and the statement recorded by PW-18 clearly show that the accused has poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to her on coming home in a drunken condition and the statements of PWs 1 to 3 supports the dying declaration and the trial court has rightly convicted the accused for the offences under Secs.498-A and 302 IPC and, therefore, it does not call for any interference.

¶27

10. According to the prosecution, the marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed about eleven

¶28

years back and as he was addicted to alcohol, he used to harass the deceased both mentally and physically and on 17/18.5.2007 at about 1.00 hours, while the deceased was sleeping, the accused poured kerosene on her body and lit fire with an intention to do away with the life of the deceased and caused burn injuries and the deceased while undergoing treatment in Government Hospital, Ongole died due to burn injuries.

¶29

11. PW-1 is mother of the deceased. According to her, her daughter was given in marriage to the accused about 12 years back and till two children were born to the deceased after marriage, they lived happily and after the birth of third child, the deceased was addicted to alcohol and used to pick up quarrels with the deceased and the deceased used to inform her about the demand for additional dowry by the accused and asked them to comply with the demand, for which they replied that it is not possible for them to comply with the demand for additional dowry. She further stated that the deceased returned back to her husband and from time to time came back to them and informed them about the demand for dowry by the accused. One year prior to the incident, when the deceased was at the house of the accused, she was set fire by the accused and was shifted to Government Hospital, Kandukur and they were informed by one Narasinga Rao, brother of the accused and they rushed to the Hospital at Kandukur. When they

¶30

questioned the deceased, she disclosed that the accused came during night hours by consuming alcohol, poured kerosene on her body and lit fire to her and her father-inlaw poured water on her and extinguished the flames and they shifted her to the Government Hospital for treatment.

¶31

12. PW-2 is brother of the deceased. He supported the version of PW-1 with regard to the accused harassing the deceased in connection with the demand for dowry and about receiving information with regard to the admission of the deceased in the Hospital, Kandakur through brother of the accused and they going over to the Hospital where the deceased disclosed about the accused pouring kerosene and setting fire to her.

¶32

13. PW-3 is related to the deceased. He supported PWs. 1 and 2 with regard to their going to the Hospital and finding the deceased with burn injuries and she disclosing about pouring of kerosene and setting fire to her by the accused.

¶33

14. PW-4 is uncle of the deceased. He stated that on being informed by the brother of the accused, they went to the Government Hospital, Kandukur and found the deceased with burn injuries. PW-5 is brother-in-law of the accused and PW-6 is the brother of the accused. According to them, on that night, the deceased was sleeping at the house and as there was failure of current

¶34

(power), she has kept kerosene lamp and the same fell accidentally on the deceased causing burn injuries.

¶35

15. The other witnesses PWs 7 to 9 are neighbourers. According to the prosecution, they came to the place of incident on hearing the cries of the deceased. They were declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-10 had shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Kandukur in his auto, for treatment.

¶36

16. Thus from the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, it is established that the deceased was being harassed by the accused in connection with demand for dowry and he was addicted to alcohol.

¶37

17. With regard to the occurrence of the incident, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The prosecution relies upon the dying declaration recorded by PW 17 and the statement recorded by PW-18.

¶38

18. PW-17 is the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ongole. According to him, on 18.5.2007, he received intimation from the Government Hospital, Ongole at 9.15 p.m. about the admission of the deceased in the Hospital with burn injuries and immediately he proceeded to the Government Hospital and after putting formal questions to satisfy himself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and after the doctor who was present also certified about the condition of the patient, he recorded the statement of

¶39

the deceased, marked as Ex.P-25. Ex.P-25 discloses that yesterday night at about 7.00 p.m., the accused came in a drunken condition and beat her with hands and his parents separated him, then he asked her to arrange a cot, thereafter he locked the door and beat her again and her second son who is aged about seven month was with her in-laws outside the room, they knocked the door and asked the accused to open the door, but the accused replied that the deceased is his wife and he will beat the deceased as he likes. He poured kerosene on her saree and lighted matchstick and set fire to her and her brotherin-law has poured water and extinguished the fire and brought her to Government Hospital, Kandukuru. After the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, PW-17, recorded the said statement, PW-18, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, also recorded the statement of the deceased at Government Hospital, Kandukur on 18.5.2007 at about 4.10 a.m. According to PW-18, he received intimation from the Hospital on 18.5.2007 at 4.00 a.m., while he was in Police Station, Kandukuru, about the admission of the patient with burn injuries and then he proceeded to the Hospital and reached at 4.10 a.m. He questioned the victim to ascertain her name and reasons for sustaining the burn injuries. She gave the statement and he recorded the same and obtained her thumb impression. The duty doctor who was present also certified that the victim was in a fit condition to make the statement. The said

¶40

statement is marked as Ex.P-26. In Ex. P-26, the deceased has stated that her husband used to beat her and on the night of 17.5.2007, herself, her second son and her husband slept inside the house and her motherin-law and others slept on cots outside the house and at about 1.00 a.m., her husband raised dispute with her and poured kerosene on her and set fire with a matchstick. She raised hue and cry due to the burn injuries and her father-in-law, mother-in-law and others came inside the house and rescued her from the burns and she was brought to Kandukur Hospital for treatment.

¶41

19. PW-14 is the doctor who has admitted the deceased in the Hospital and gave first aid, also stated about the admission of the patient in the hospital by her relatives with burn injuries and he sent intimation to the Kandukur Police Station for recording the statement and he certified about the condition of the patient on the statement recorded by the police is marked as Ex.P-20. At the time of recording the statement, the patient was conscious and coherent. He further stated that he referred the patient to the Government Hospital, Ongole for better treatment. Therefore, even at the time of recording the statement Ex.P-26 by PW-18, the patient was in a fit state of mind to give the statement and at the time of recording the dying declaration, Ex.P-25 by PW-17, the doctor was present and certified about the condition of the patient and stated that she was in a good statement of mind while

¶42

giving statement. Thus, both the said statements recorded by PWs. 17 and 18 are, while the patient was in a good mental condition. The said statements recorded by PWs. 17 and 18 are consistent with regard to the accused pouring kerosene and litting fire to her. Apart from the above dying declaration and the statement of the deceased, PWs 1 to 3 also stated that the deceased disclosed the same version to them, which amounts to oral dying declaration of the deceased. Thus the prosecution could be able to establish that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her.

¶43

20. According to the Investigating Officer, PW-19, after registering the FIR, he has gone to the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Village Revenue Officer, Ponnalur, PW-13 and seized M.Os. 1 to 4. PW-13 also supported the version of the Investigating Officer with regard to the conducting of scene of offence panchanama in his presence and recovery of M.Os. 1 to 4. According to him, MO-1 is the plastic can, MO-2 is the burnt saree, MO-3 is burnt piece of petty coat and MO-4 is the burnt piece of jacket. Thus the plastic can was seized from the scene of offence and according to the prosecution, it is containing kerosene. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is established that the accused had poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to her causing burn injuries and the doctor, PW-16,

¶44

who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to burn injuries. Thus the death of the deceased was due to burn injuries caused by the accused and the prosecution could be able to establish the demand of dowry by the accused and in that connection, he harassed the deceased, poured kerosene and set fire to her. Thus the prosecution has proved the charges under Secs. 498-A and 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court also rightly came to the conclusion and recorded the conviction and sentence against the accused for the said charges. The said findings recorded by the trial court do not warrant any interference by this court in this appeal.

¶45

16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused for the offences under Secs. 498-A and 302 IPC in S.C. 384 of 2007 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole on 2.5.2008.

¶46

Justice N.V. Ramana

¶47

___________________ Justice P.Durga Prasad

¶48

July 09, 2012 MAS.

Maddirala Rama Swamy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddirala Rama Swamy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bale Venkatappa, Vs The State of A.P.

V. Ashok Kumar Vs Syndicate Bank

Palivela Manikyam, Vs The State of A.P.

Boya Rangappa, Vs The State of A.P.

Shaik Rasool, Vs The State of A.P.

A. Venkatamma, Vs The Director General of Police