In this criminal appeal regarding murder and cruelty charges, the High Court rejected the appellant's claim of inconsistency in dying declarations. The court found corroboration from independent witnesses and upheld the trial court's conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.813 of 2011
JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
2
the date of incident. The first wife of the accused died and he was having two children through his first wife. After marriage, the deceased and the accused along with children of the accused through his first wife started living at Yakuthpura. It is stated that the accused used to beat the deceased stating that she was not preparing the food properly. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased came to her parents house. Thereafter, the accused is said to have been gone to the house of his in-laws and brought her back, promising to look after her well. The evidence on record also shows that the deceased was also married earlier and her husband died about four years prior to her marriage with the accused. The deceased informed PWs.1 and 4 about the harassment in the hands of the accused.
The case of the prosecution is that on the date of incident the accused called the deceased and thereafter is said to have poured kerosene and set her fire. The neighbours shifted the deceased to the hospital. On receipt of a telephonic information from Osmania General Hospital, about the admission of the deceased with burn injuries, PW.13, the A.S.I. of Police, proceeded to the hospital, identified the injured with the help of duty doctor and recorded the statement, after satisfying himself about the state of mind of the deceased to give the statement. In the said statement, the deceased stated that the accused sent their daughter to bring milk and thereafter poured kerosene and set her fire. It was further stated that the accused set her on fire on the ground that she was not good looking and also suspecting her
3
character. The statement made by the deceased which was in Urdu was recorded in telugu and thereafter, the contents were read over and explained to her to which she agreed to be true and affixed her toe impression. The evidence of PW.13 also shows that duty doctor was present at the time of recording the statement and also endorsed that the deceased was in a fit condition while recording the statement. Ex.P7 is the statement of the deceased. The said statement was forwarded to PW.9-the Sub-Inspector of Police. Basing on the said statement, PW.9 registered a case in Crime No.29 of 2010 under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and issued Ex.P8 F.I.R. Immediately thereafter, he visited the hospital and examined the deceased, PWs.1 and 7. Thereafter, he gave requisition to PW.5, the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to record the dying declaration of the deceased. Ex.P2 is the requisition. On receipt of said requisition, PW.5 proceeded to Osmania General Hospital, put some questions to the deceased to test her mental condition. After satisfying that she is in fit condition to give statement and after taking the endorsement of the duty doctor, he recorded the statement of the deceased, wherein she stated that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire. After recording the statement, the same was read over and explained the contents of it to the deceased and when she admitted the same to be true and correct, obtained her right toe impression. Ex.P4 is the dying declaration of the deceased. PW.9 visited the scene of offence and prepared a panchanama of the scene of offence which was marked as Ex.P9. During the said
4
process he seized a plastic kerosene tin, match box and burnt cloth pieces. Ex.P10 is the rough sketch of the scene. On 17.03.2010, he arrested accused and on interrogation, the accused is said to have confessed about the commission of offence. Thereafter, the deceased died due to burns on 21.03.2010. Thereafter, he handed over the C.D. file to PW.10, for further investigation. On receipt of death intimation, PW.10 altered the section of law from 498-A, 307 IPC to 498-A, 302 IPC. Ex.P17 is the alteration memo. He sent a requisition to PW.2 to conduct inquest over the dead body, who inturn conducted inquest in the presence of PW.3 and another. Thereafter, PW.6-Assistant Professor, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P6, the Post Mortem Examination Report. According to her, the cause of death was “ due to burns” . After collecting all the materials, PW.11 filed the charge sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.34 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metroplitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which on committal came to be numbered as S.C.No.505 of 2010.
5
closure of evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf in support of his defence.
6
“ 21. Having referred to the law relating to dying declaration, now we may examine the issue that in cases involving multiple dying declarations made by the deceased, which of the various dying declarations should be believed by the court and what are the principles governing such determination. This becomes important where the multiple dying declarations made by the deceased are either contradictory or are at variance with each other to a large extent. The test of common prudence would be to first examine which of the dying declarations is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. Further, the attendant circumstances, the condition of the deceased at the relevant time, the medical evidence, the voluntariness and genuineness of the statement made by the deceased, physical and mental fitness of the deceased and possibility of the deceased being tutored are some of the factors which would guide the exercise of judicial discretion by the court in such matters.”
“ Each dying declaration has to be considered independently on its own merit so as to appreciate its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the other. In cases where there is more than one dying declaration, it is the duty of the court to consider the each one of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself that which one of them reflects the true state of affairs.”
1 (2012) 7 SCC 569
2 AIR 2016 SC 3209
7
“ My husband started quarrelling with me because he is thinking that I am having illegal contacts with some other guys. Yesterday ie. On 15.03.2010 in the night time my husband came to house and as usually started quarrelling with me and also beaten me, due to which I bite on the right side chest of my husband, later my husband quarrelling with me, then my aunty by name Fareeda Begum and neighbours also came to us and settled the matter. Later on next day at about 10.00 hours my husband abusing me by suspecting my fidelity and sent his daughter to bring milk from the shop with intention to kill me at that time no one is in the house and took out kerosene tin and poured kerosene on me and lit the fire with matchstick and went into bathroom. Due to huge flames I got burns and shouting crying loudly, on heard my noises one Kaleem who is another tenant in our building in first floor rushed there and put off flames by pouring water, on seeing him my husband also rushed and pouring water and they were wrapped me with blanket and shifted me to Osmania General Hospital for treatment.”
8
the ambulance and then the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital.
9
victim was denied. To a suggestion that dying declaration was prepared at the instance of police, was denied.
and 4. In their evidence, PWs.1 and 4 categorically stated that when they enquired with the deceased as to what happened, the deceased stated that the accused sent their daughter out to bring milk from the shop and thereafter, he poured kerosene and set her on fire. Though PWs.1 and 4 were cross-examined at length, nothing useful was elicited to discredit their evidence with regard to oral dying declaration made by the deceased before them.
3 (2014) 2 ALD (Crl.) 54 (A.P.)
10
__
JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO
02 .11.2017
gkv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether multiple dying declarations recorded by the deceased accused of burning can be acted upon despite alleged inconsistencies.
Whether the corroboration of dying declarations by independent witness evidence renders the conviction under Section 302 IPC sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudhakar v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶26
Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra (1) (2012) 7 SCC 569 · Who else cites this
Raj u Devade v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶28
Raj u Devade v. State of Maharashtra (2) AIR 2016 SC 3209 · Who else cites this
Sk. Mohammed v. State of Andhra PradeshExplained¶43
Sk. Mohammed @ Md. Miya v. State of Andhra Pradesh (3) (2014) 2 ALD (Crl.) 54 (A.P.)
4 provisions across 3 enactments
The Appellant
The State
C. Praveen Kumar
P. Keshava Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
