Dismissed

The State of a.P., v. Kunta Bapanna

Telangana HC10 Oct 2012CRLA/1470/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appealed against acquittal in murder and dowry death case. Supreme Court found inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, contradictions with dying declaration, and lack of corroboration, upholding the lower court's decision to grant benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; acquittal of accused upheld; no interference with judgment of Sessions Judge.

The State of a.P., Vs Kunta Bapanna — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1470 of 2008

¶3

JUDGMENT: (per Justice N.V. Ramana)

¶4

Questioning the judgment dated 09.03.2007 passed in S.C. No. 355 of 2006 by the II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Adilabad, acquitting respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the State preferred the present appeal.

¶5

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.11.2005 at about 13.00 hours, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1-complaint with P.W.21-S.I. of Police, Adilabad Rural Police Station, stating that he performed the marriage of his daughter-deceased namely Hamsai with one Kunta Bapanna, accused No.1 herein, who is a resident of Jamdapur village. At the time of marriage, they gave an amount of Rs.42,000/- towards dowry to the accused. The deceased and accused No.1 led happy marital life for about four or five months. Thereafter, accused No.1, his parents and brother, namely accused Nos.2 to 4, started harassing the deceased physically and mentally to get additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. Once the accused pushed the deceased into a pond, but the villagers rescued and sent her to her house. In that regard, a panchayat was held. The accused attended the panchayat and assured that they would look after the deceased well, and took the deceased to their house. While so, on 23.11.2005, at about 09.00 hours, he came to know that the accused poured kerosene on the

¶6

deceased and set fire to her and that she was admitted in District Head Quarters Hospital, Adilabad. Thereupon, he went to the hospital and when he enquired with the deceased, she informed him that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her with a view to kill her so that accused No.1 can marry again. Based on the said complaint, P.W.21 registered a case in Crime No.113/2005 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A r/w 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and issued FIR and took up investigation.

¶7

During the course of investigation, P.W.21 examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. Later, he visited the District Head Quarters Hospital, observed the victim/deceased, examined her and gave requisition to P.W.20-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, for recording the dying declaration of the deceased. Thereupon, P.W.20 went to the District Head Quarters Hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.21 secured the presence of P.W.16 and Kurrewar Rukku (L.W.19) and seized the burnt clothes of the deceased under a panchanama. Thereafter, he gave requisition for treatment of accused No.1. He examined P.W.2, the mother of the deceased, and recorded her statement. Later, he visited Jamadapur, observed the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W.15 and one Bobbili Gangamma (L.W.20), seized an empty bottle of kerosene under cover of panchanama, and drew rough sketch of the scene of offence. Later, he examined P.Ws.3 to 13, Paspula Sudarshan (L.W.7) and Bakki Shivanna (L.W.15), and recorded their statements. Thereafter, on 02.12.2005, on reliable information, he apprehended accused No.3 at his house, recorded his confession and produced him before the

¶8

Court, and he was remanded to judicial custody. On 03.12.2005, at 11.45 a.m., the deceased died while undergoing treatment, and immediately P.W.21 altered the section of law from 307 I.P.C. to 302 I.P.C. and issued amended FIR. On the requisition given by P.W.21, P.W.19-Mandal Revenue Officer visited the District Head Quarters Hospital, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.17 and Devtade Gouramma (L.W.23). Thereafter, with the assistance of P.W.14, P.W.21 took the photographs of the deceased. After conducting inquest, he sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. P.W.18, having conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued post-mortem examination report opining the cause of death as “sepsis”. He also treated accused No.1 and issued medical certificate opining that the burn injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. Thereafter, P.W.22-C.I. of Police took up further investigation. He verified the investigation done by P.W.21 and found it to be on proper lines. P.W.22 arrested accused No.1 on 21.12.2005, accused No.2 on 22.12.2005 and accused No.4 on 06.01.2006 and they were sent for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, P.W.22 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A r/w 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶9

The Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 498-A read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried.

¶10

To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and marked Exs.P1 to P24 and M.Os.1 and 2. No oral or

¶11

documentary evidence was adduced by the accused in defence.

¶12

The Sessions Judge, having appreciated the entire evidence available on record, held the accused not guilty of the charges framed and accordingly acquitted them for the said charges. Questioning the same, the State preferred the present appeal.

¶13

Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the respondents-accused and perused the judgment under appeal and other material available on record.

¶14

The point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the respondentsaccused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

¶15

P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. P.W.3 is said to have scribed Ex.P1-report lodged by P.W.1. P.W.4 is the auto driver, who is said to have shifted the deceased and accused No.1 to District Head Quarters Hospital. P.W.5 is said to have brought P.W.4-auto driver to shift the deceased to the hospital in his auto. P.Ws.6 and 7 are the neighbours of the accused. P.Ws.8 to 11 are residents of the village where the accused and the deceased reside. P.W.12 is the younger brother of P.W.1. P.W.13 is the village elder, who is said to have held panchayat between the accused and the deceased. P.W.14 is the photographer, who took the photographs of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.15 is mediator to Ex.P16-scene of offence panchanama and seizure of M.O.1-plastic kerosene tin. P.W.16 is mediator to seizure of M.O.2 under Ex.P17-panchanama. P.W.17 is mediator to the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased.

¶16

P.W.18 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and treated accused No.1 for the burn injuries. P.W.19 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, Adilabad, who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P18. P.W.20 is the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. P.W.21 is the S.I. of Police, who, based on Ex.P1-report lodged by P.W.1, registered the case and conducted investigation. P.W.22 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.

¶17

According to the prosecution, the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty to meet their unlawful demand for additional dowry and caused her death, by pouring kerosene and setting fire to her.

¶18

P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, deposed about his performing the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1, giving dowry of Rs.42,000/- to the accused at the time of marriage, the accused harassing the deceased for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-, and his expressing inability to pay that amount. He deposed that accused No.1 forced the deceased to bring money and pushed her into a pond, and then the villagers of the accused saved and brought her to his house. Then, at his request, a panchayat was held by P.W.12 and another. Accused No.1 and his grandmother attended the said panchayat, wherein accused No.1 assured to look after the deceased well. Thereupon, he sent the deceased to the house of the accused. One month thereafter, while he was in Adilabad, he received information that all the accused had poured kerosene and set fire to the deceased. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Adilabad. He has seen the deceased in the Hospital and she informed

¶19

him that accused No.1 had poured kerosene and set fire to her, for additional dowry. The deceased died 11 days thereafter in the hospital. He gave Ex.P1 report to the police, while the deceased was in the hospital.

¶20

P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, corroborated the version of P.W.1 as regards their giving dowry of Rs.42,000/- to the accused at the time of marriage of the deceased with accused No.1, the accused harassing the deceased for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and their expressing inability to pay that amount. She deposed that once a panchayat was held in their village, and later, on another occasion, again a panchayat was held in the village of the accused. On the assurance given by the accused in the panchayat that they would look after the deceased well, they sent the deceased with him. One month thereafter, she learnt that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to the deceased. She went to Government Hospital, Adilabad, and saw the deceased with burn injuries. The deceased informed her that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her, for additional dowry. The deceased died 11 days thereafter in the hospital. Police examined her.

¶21

P.W.3, who is said to have scribed Ex.P1-report, deposed that at the request of P.W.1, he scribed Ex.P1 as per the instructions of P.W.1 and that P.W.1 told him that all the accused poured kerosene and set her on fire, for additional dowry.

¶22

P.W.4, who is said to have shifted the deceased to hospital in his auto, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. According to him, about one and half years ago, while he was at his house, P.W.5 called him to bring his auto to the house of the

¶23

accused. Accordingly, he took his auto to the house of the accused and found the deceased with burn injuries. He shifted the deceased and accused No.1 in his auto to the Government Hospital, Adilabad, along with another person, and thereafter went away. The victim did not talk anything. In his cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that on the way to the hospital, accused No.1 threatened to kill the deceased, if she reveals the fact that he poured kerosene and set fire to her, and denied to have stated as such in his statement to the police under Ex.P2.

¶24

P.W.5, who is said to have brought P.W.4 to shift the deceased to hospital in his auto, also turned hostile. According to him, about one and half years ago, at about 9.00 a.m., while he was sitting in the busstop to go to Adilabad, accused No.1 came there with flames to his hands and told him that he required an auto to shift his wife, who has received burn injuries, to hospital. Then he went to the house of P.W.4 and brought him along with his auto. Then accused No.1 shifted his wife to the Government Hospital, Adilabad, in that auto. In his crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he heard the cries of the deceased for help and when he went to the house of the deceased, he found the deceased in flames and accused No.1 pushing her into flames and that later he brought an auto for shifting the deceased to hospital, and denied to have stated as such in his statement to the police under Ex.P3.

¶25

P.Ws.6 and 7, who are said to be the neighbours of the accused and who the prosecution examined to speak about the alleged dowry harassment by the accused towards the deceased, also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

¶26

P.W.8 is a resident of the village where the accused and the deceased resided. He too turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. According to him, about more than one year ago, himself and P.W.9 attended the fields for cutting jowar crop. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also attended to the work in the fields. At that time, one of their villagers came there and called accused Nos.2 and 3 and then they went home. On that day, the deceased received burn injuries. He does not know how the deceased sustained burn injuries. In his crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that accused No.1 set fire to the deceased and subsequently accused No.3 also went there, on being called by accused No.2, and that he stated before police as in Ex.P6 and was deposing falsely to help the accused.

¶27

P.W.9 also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He stated that on the day of incident, himself and P.W.8 were in the fields for cutting jowar crop. At about 9.00 a.m. or 10.00 a.m., accused Nos.2 and 3 went home from the fields. After he returned home in the evening, he learnt that the deceased received burn injuries and was taken to Government Hospital, Adilabad. She died subsequently in the hospital. In his cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied to have stated before the police that accused No.2 came to the fields and took accused No.3 to their house, and having stated before the police as in Ex.P7, he was deposing falsely to help the accused.

¶28

P.W.10, who is also a resident of the village where the accused and the deceased reside, did not support the case of the prosecution. He deposed that about more than one year ago, while himself and accused No.4 were grazing goats, at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.11 came

¶29

and informed accused No.4 that his sister-in-law (the deceased) had set herself on fire and she was shifted to the Government Hospital. Then accused No.4 left to his house. He went home at about 6.00 p.m. or 7.00 p.m. and came to know that the deceased poured kerosene and set her on fire. In his cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P8 to the effect that accused No.1 harassed the deceased for additional dowry and poured kerosene and set the deceased on fire, and denied that he was deposing falsely to help the accused.

¶30

P.W.11 also turned hostile. He stated that about more than a year ago, while he was going to his fields, he found some people running towards their village and, on enquiry, they informed him that the deceased herself poured kerosene and set fire to her and she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Adilabad. Then he went to the fields and found P.W.10 and accused No.4 grazing the goats. He informed accused No.4 that the deceased sustained burn injuries and was shifted to hospital. Then accused No.4 went home. In his crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that accused No.1 poured kerosene and set the deceased on fire and that he informed the same to accused No.4 and stated before the police as in Ex.P9.

¶31

P.W.12 is the younger brother of P.W.1. He corroborated the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 about their paying Rs.42,000/- to the accused towards dowry at the time of marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 and the accused harassing the deceased for additional dowry. He further deposed that on one occasion, the deceased was thrown into a pond and then she came to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2. He conducted a panchayat in that regard. Accused No.1 along with his

¶32

grandmother and one Ganganna attended the said panchayat. He scolded accused No.1 for harassing the deceased. Accused No.1 assured to look after the deceased well and wanted to take the deceased with him. Himself, one Ramulu (P.W.13) and Shivanna (L.W.15), who acted as elders to that panchayat, asked the deceased to go and live with the accused. The said panchayat was conducted in their village 15 or 20 days prior to the death of the deceased. Even after the deceased went to the house of the accused, they did not stop harassing her for additional dowry. Twenty days after the panchayat was conducted, the accused poured kerosene and set the deceased on fire, and she was shifted to Government Hospital, Adilabad, with burn injuries. She told him that the accused had poured kerosene and set her on fire. Two days thereafter, she died in the hospital. Police examined him.

¶33

P.W.13, who also is said to have acted as elder to the panchayat, along with P.W.12, deposed that the accused were harassing the deceased for additional dowry. One month prior to her death, they conducted a panchayat, and one month prior to that panchayat, they were informed that the deceased was thrown into a pond by the accused, but he does not know whether she fell in the pond or the accused pushed her into it. However, after that incident, she came to her parents house and then himself, P.W.12 and one Shivanna acted as elders to the panchayat. All the accused attended the panchayat. The deceased informed them that the accused were harassing her for additional dowry. When they questioned, the accused stated that they were not harassing her for additional dowry, and stated that they would look after her well. Then they sent the deceased with the accused. One month thereafter, they learnt that the

¶34

deceased received burn injuries and was admitted in hospital. When they asked her as to how the incident occurred, she informed them that accused No.1 poured kerosene and set her on fire. That the police examined him.

¶35

P.W.14 is the photographer who took the photographs of the dead body of the deceased. He deposed about his taking photographs of the dead body of the deceased, at the instance of the police.

¶36

P.W.15 is mediator to scene of offence panchanama and seizure of M.O.1-plastic kerosene tin. He deposed about the police conducting scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P16 and seizing M.O.1-plastic kerosene tin from the scene of offence, in his presence.

¶37

P.W.16 is mediator to the seizure of burnt clothes of the deceased. He deposed that when he went to the hospital to see the deceased, she told him that accused No.1 had poured kerosene and set her on fire. The police seized M.O.2- half burnt petticoat of the deceased under Ex.P17-seizure panchanama in his presence.

¶38

P.W.17 is mediator to the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. He deposed about the Mandal Revenue Officer conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence, under Ex.P18-inquest report.

¶39

P.W.18 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Adilabad, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P19-post-mortem examination report. He stated that, on 04.12.2005, on receipt of requisition from Adilabad Rural Police, he conducted post-mortem examination over

¶40

the dead body of the deceased and found external burn injuries all over her body. He opined that the deceased died due to severe burn injuries, which are noted at 65%, and due to sepsis (infection due to burn injuries). He issued Ex.P19-post-mortem examination report. He further stated that on 23.11.2005 at about 12.00 noon, he examined accused No.1 and found burn injuries on his hands and chest, which are simple in nature, as noted by him in Ex.P20-Injury Certificate. Accused No.1 was treated as

¶41

in-patient from 23.11.2005 to 04.12.2005.

¶42

P.W.19-Mandal Revenue officer, Adilabad Mandal, deposed about conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the Government Hospital, Adilabad. He stated that it was opined by the panchas that accused No.1 poured kerosene on the deceased and set her to fire for additional dowry.

¶43

P.W.20 is the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P22. He stated that on 23.11.2005, at 2.05 p.m., on receipt of requisition from the Police of Adilabad (Rural), to record the dying declaration of the deceased, he rushed to the Government hospital, Adilabad, and reached the Ward where the deceased was admitted. He sent away the persons who were present near the patient, so that no one is aware of the proceedings. The duty doctor was present and he certified that the patient was conscious and coherent and is in a fit state to make statement. Then he put some preliminary questions to the deceased to know about her condition, and after satisfying about her fit state of mind, he proceeded to record her statement, after disclosing his identity. The deceased stated that her husband-accused No.1 has been harassing her, that accused No.1 loved another woman prior to

¶44

their marriage and even after their marriage, he continued to have contacts with that woman, and when she questioned about the same, accused No.1 beat her and ill-treated her. She further stated that accused No.1 poured kerosene and set her on fire, due to which she received burn injuries. She also stated that since the date of marriage, accused No.1 used to harass her, coming home in drunken state. P.W.20 further deposed that he concluded recording the statement of the deceased by 2.40 p.m. and as she was found with burn injuries all over her body including hands, he obtained her left toe impression on the statement.

¶45

P.W.21 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case on the basis of Ex.P1-report lodged by P.W.1 and issued Ex.P23-F.I.R, and conducted investigation. He deposed that after registering the case and issuing F.I.R., he examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. Then, he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Adilabad, examined the deceased and recorded her statement. He then sent a requisition to the Magistrate to record the dying declaration of the deceased. He examined P.W.2 in the hospital and recorded her statement. He seized M.O.2-partly burnt clothes of the deceased in the presence of P.W.16 and one Rukku (L.W.19). On the same day, he went to Jamdapur village and visited the house of the accused. He conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W.15 and one Ganganna (L.W.20) and seized M.O.1-plastic kerosene tin, and also prepared rough sketch of the scene. He then examined P.Ws.3 to 15 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. P.Ws.4 to 11 had stated before him as in Exs.P2 to P11 respectively. He further stated that on 02.01.2005 at about 8.30 hours, he apprehended accused No.3 and produced him before the Magistrate

¶46

for remand. On 03.12.2005, he received information about the death of the deceased and thereupon he altered the Section of law from 307 I.P.C. to 302 I.P.C. He sent a requisition to the M.R.O. to conduct inquest over the dead body. He got the dead body of the deceased photographed by P.W.14. Subsequently, the Circle Inspector of Police took up further investigation of the case. As per the record, the Circle Inspector of Police apprehended accused No.1 on 21.12.2005, accused No.4 on 22.12.2005 and accused No.2 on 06.01.2006 and produced them before the Court for remand. After receipt of postmortem certificate, medical certificate and inquest report, the C.I. of Police filed charge sheet.

¶47

P.W.22 is the C.I. of Police. He deposed about arresting accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and filing charge sheet in the case, as stated by P.W.21.

¶48

Thus, as can be seen from the above evidence, P.Ws.4 to 11 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. It is only the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 12, 13 and 16, which has to be considered to decide whether the prosecution could prove that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty for additional dowry and caused her homicidal death, beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶49

Though P.W.1 stated that accused No.1 pushed the deceased into a pond and then the villagers of the accused rescued and brought her to his house, and then at his request, a panchayat was held by P.W.12 and another, but P.W.2, who is the wife of P.W.1 and mother of the deceased, did not corroborate the said version of P.W.1 and her evidence is silent with regard to the said incident of accused No.1 pushing the deceased into pond. None of the villagers, who are said

¶50

to have rescued the deceased when accused No.1 pushed her into pond, and brought her to the house of P.W.1, were examined to speak about the said incident. Further, P.W.12 only stated that on one occasion, the deceased was thrown into a pond and then she came to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2. He did not state as to who threw her into the pond. P.W.13, though stated that they were informed that the deceased was thrown into a pond by the accused, but again categorically stated that he does not know whether the deceased herself fell in the pond or the accused pushed her into it. Thus, the version of P.W.1 that accused No.1 has thrown the deceased into pond, is not corroborated by the other witnesses, and hence cannot be believed. This apart, according to P.W.12, after the deceased was thrown into pond and she came to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2, himself and P.W.13 conducted a panchayat and accused No.1 along with his grandmother and one Ganganna attended the said panchayat. This version of P.W.12 is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.13. According to P.W.13, all the accused attended the said panchayat. In view of this inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13, the conducting of panchayat by P.Ws.12 and 13 also becomes doubtful. Further, P.Ws.1, 2, 12 and 13, except stating that the accused harassed the deceased for additional dowry, did not refer to any specific instance as to how the accused harassed her. In view of the inconsistencies in their evidence and in the absence of the witnesses speaking about any specific instance of harassment meted out to the deceased in the hands of the accused, their evidence that the accused used to harass the deceased for additional dowry, cannot be believed.

¶51

Further, according to the prosecution and according to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 12 and 13, the accused used to harass the

¶52

deceased for additional dowry and the same is the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. But, the deceased, in her dying declaration under Ex.P22 given to P.W.20-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, stated that accused No.1 used to come home in drunken state and quarrel with her, that prior to their marriage, he loved a woman and even after their marriage, he used to go to that woman, and that he poured kerosene and set her on fire. Thus, the deceased did not state anything about the alleged dowry harassment by the accused towards her and she gave a different version from that of the material witnesses, as regards the motive for accused No.1 to kill her. Even though the deceased in her dying declaration has categorically stated that accused No.1 was having illicit intimacy with another woman, the investigating agency, for the reasons best known to them, did not conduct investigation in that regard, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

¶53

Further, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 12 shows that the deceased informed them that all the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her. But, the deceased, in her dying declaration under Ex.P22, stated that accused No.1 alone had poured kerosene and set fire to her. Thus, there is also inconsistency between the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 12 and Ex.P22-dying declaration of the deceased, as to whether all the accused involved in the commission of murder of the deceased or accused No.1 alone committed the offence. This apart, the evidence of P.Ws.8 to 11 shows that accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 were attending to their work in the fields on the date of incident. Hence, the involvement of accused Nos.2 to 4 in the commission of murder of the deceased is very much doubtful.

¶54

Though the deceased stated in her dying declaration that

¶55

accused No.1 poured kerosene and set fire to her, but it is the defence taken by accused No.1 that the deceased was of unsound mind and she herself poured kerosene and set fire to her and when he tried to extinguish the fire and save her, he sustained burn injuries to his hands. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 18 shows that accused No.1 also sustained burn injuries to his hands on the date of incident. P.W.5 has categorically stated that on the date of incident, accused No.1 came to him with flames to his hands and asked for an auto to shift his wife, who received burn injuries, to hospital. The evidence of P.W.18-doctor reveals that he examined accused No.1 on 23.11.2005 and found minor burn injuries on his hands and chest. Accused No.1 was treated as an in-patient from 23.11.2005 to 04.12.2005 and P.W.18 issued Ex.P20-Injury Certificate. Though the accused has not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was of unsound mind, but in the absence of the prosecution proving any of the circumstances that connect either accused No.1 or all the accused with the commission of murder of the deceased, beyond all reasonable doubt, the defence taken by accused No.1 that he sustained burn injuries in his attempt to save the deceased, gets strengthened. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 shows that accused No.1 accompanied the deceased to the hospital, which creates doubt in our mind about the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 set fire to the deceased.

¶56

In view of the inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the dying declaration of the deceased, which is contrary to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and the failure on the part of the prosecution in investigating about the alleged extra-marital affair of accused No.1, as stated by the deceased, and having regard to the fact that accused No.1 admitted the deceased in the hospital and

¶57

also sustained burn injuries to his hands, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence the Sessions Judge has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of the charges framed. Therefore, we hold that the judgment under appeal passed by the Sessions Judge, acquitting the accused of the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, does not warrant any interference in this appeal.

¶58

The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶60

______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶61

10^th October, 2012 IBL

The State of a.P., v. Kunta Bapanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P., v. Kunta Bapanna

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

Pratapa V.K.S. Somajayulu, Vs The Superintendent of Police

M.Ramu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sivangula Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

Kammari Prabhu,(A-6) Vs State of A.P.

Thumma Siva, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Kareemullah, Vs The Commissioner of Police