Partly allowed

Gopal Bahadur , Basheer Ahmed, Warangal., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC12 Nov 2024CRLA/41/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court examined the appellant's conduct during an incident where he set fire to his wife. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that his immediate efforts to extinguish the fire and save the victim negated intent to murder.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 304-II IPC; bail bonds discharged.

Gopal Bahadur , Basheer Ahmed, Warangal., Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

NOTE : The AppellanvAccused^{was directedto be releasedon bail by the orderof} the High Courtdated^{26.12.2022 in l.A.No.3ot2022inCrl.A.No. 41 of ZUA}

¶2

[^341e ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL^KUMARJUKANTI

¶8

CRIMINA L APPEAL NO: 4'l OF 2016

¶9

Appeal filed under Section 374(2)^{of Cr.P.C., againstthe} ,Judgment^dated 16.11.2015^passed in s.c.No.^{296 ot 2011 on the file of the courtof the Vlll} Additional Sessions Judge^{at Warangal.}

¶10

Between:

¶11

Gopal Bahadur @ Basheer Ahmed, S/o.^{Bagath BahadurPun,Age: 38 ye€rs,} Ocd: Grade-ll Fitter in Loco Shed,^{South Central Railways,Kazipet, F:/o.} Q,No. 584/5,^{Railway Quarters, Chinthalbasthi,Kazipet,Warangal.}

¶12

...AppellanUAccused

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, rep. by the^{Public Prosecutor, High Courtat} Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of^AP.

¶15

...RespondenUComplainant

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant : Mrs.^{PushpinderKaur}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent : Additional^{Public Prosecutor}

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEJ. ANIL KUMAR}

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{No.41 OF. 2016}

¶23

JUDGMENT:^{(per Hon'bleSri Justice K.Surender)}

¶24

This appeal is filed^{aggrieved by the judgmentdated} 16.11.2015 in S.C.No.296^{of 2011, on the file of the VIII} Additional Sessions Judge, at^{Warangal,convictingthe} appellant for the offence under^{Section 302 of IPC.}

¶25

Heard the learned counsel^{for the appellant/accused} and the learned Additional^{Public Prosecutorfor respondent-} State.

¶26

The case of the^prosecution is that^{the appellant} rnarried his wife (hereinafter referred^as 'deceased')^nearly14 years prior to the incident. It^{was a love marriage. They had} two sons out of their wedlock.^{The appellant was addicted to} alcohol and used to come^{home in a drrrnken condition and} used to harass the deceased.^{It is allegedthat the incident} happened on 04.12.2010 in the^{night at about 8:30 p'm. The} appellant went to the house^{after consumingalcohol and} there was quarrel in between^{the spouses.Enragedby} questioning by the deceased, the appellant^poured

¶27

¶28

kerosene/petrol on^{her and lit fire with a match stick' When} the deceased caught fire,^{immediately,theappellant} extinguished fire by^{pouring water and in the process, the} appellant also sustained burn^{injuries to his hands and face'} Then the appellant took the^{deceased to the hospital. On the} request given by the duty^{Doctor,P'W. 12/jurisdictional} Magistrate went to the hospital^{and recorded dying} declaration/ Ex.P.2O . Learned Magistrate having^put preliminary questions^{was satisfiedthat the deceased was in} a fit state of mind and started^{recording the declaration. The} dut5r Doctor also endorsed on the^{dying declaration that} patient was conscious, coherent and mentaliy lit^condition while recording the dying declaration.

¶29

In the said dying declaration,^{the deceasedstatedthat} marriage with the^{appellant was performed14 years ago and} it was love marriage.^{The incidenthappened when the} appellant came home in a^{drunken conditionand poured} kerosene/petrol on her.^{Thoughshe stated it was not funny,} however, the appellant immediately^{lit match stick and threw} it at her. To the next^question, the^{deceasedstated that her} husband poured water and^put off^{the flames and brought} her to the hospital.

¶30

¶31

Learned Sessions Judge^{having consideredthe evidence} of the deceased in the statement^{made found that with an} intention to commit murder,^{appellant poured petrol and lit} fire to her. The act^{of extinguishing flamesand taking her to} the hospital in no^{way would help the appellant.Basing on} the said findings, the appellant^{was convicted tolife} imprisonment for the offence^{under Section302 of IPC.}

¶32

¶33

The only^ground raised by^{the iearnedcounsel} appearing for the appellant^{is that it is admitted that the} appellant was in a drunken^{conditionand the pouring of} petrol was in an intoxicated condition.^{However, whenhe lit} Iire, he immediately^{realized his acts, poured wateron her'} In the process of extinguishing^{flames,he had received} injuries on his^{hands and face, that in itselfwould show that} there was no intention of^{causingdeath.The said act of} pouring petrol was totally unintentional.^{At most, the offence} may fall under Section^{304-IIof IPC.}

¶34

t I

¶35

7 . Learned counsel relied on^{the judgment of the Hon'ble} Supreme Court in Kaluram^{vs State of Rajasthanr.The} relevant paragraph^{7 reads as under:-}

¶36

1 1999 Lawsuit (SC) 725

¶37

¶38

"But then, what is the nature of the offence proved against him. It is an admitted case that appellant was in a highly inebriated stage when he approached the deceased when the demand for sparing her ornaments was made by him. When she refused to oblige he poured kerosene on her and wanted her to Iit the match-stick. When she failed to do so he collected the match box and ignited one match-stick but when flames were up he suddenly and frantically poured water to save her from the tongues of flames. This conduct cannot be seen divorced from the totality of the circumstances. V"ry probably he would not have anticipated that the act done by him woutd have escalated to such a proportion that she might die. If he had ever intended her to die he would not have alerted his senses to bring water in an effort to rescue her. We are inclined to thlnk that al1 what the accused thought of was to inflict burns to her and to frighten her but unfortunately the situation slipped out of his control and it went to the fatal extent. He would not have intended to inflict the injuries which she sustained on account of his act. Therefore, we are persuaded to bring down the offence frorn the first degree murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder."

¶39

Learned counsel also relied on the^judgment of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Dattatraya vs. The State of Maharashtra2. In Dattarayats case the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on Kaluram's case held that offence would not

¶40

2 cRl.A.No.666 of 2012

¶41

¶42

fall under Section^{302 of IPC and fal1s withinthe lour corners} of Section 304-il^{of lPC.}

¶43

g. Nowhere, the prosecution^{has disputedthe intoxicated} condition of the^{appellant when the incidenthad taken place'} It is a-lso not in dispute that^{the appellant having realizedhis} folly, he immediately extinguished^{fire and took her to the} hospital.

¶44

1 0. Further his receiving^{injurieson his hands and face} and being admittlng^into hospital for burns was^{also not} disputed.

¶45

¶46

The observation of the Hon'ble^{Supreme Court in both} the judgments stated supra would^{squarely apply to the case} on hand. Though the facts^{in the said judgmentsslightly} va5r, however, substratum of^{the judgmentsis that from the} facts in a case, if it can^{be deducedthat there is no intention} on the part of the accused to murder^{the deceased, no offence} will be made or.rt under Section^{302 of IPC, conviction can be} recorded under Section^{3O4-II of IPC.}

¶47

As already narrated, in^{the present facts of the case,} we do not hesitate to hold that^{there isabsolutelyno} intention on the part of the appellant^{to commit murder of}

¶48

¶49

the deceased. Accordingly, conviction under Section 302 of IPC is set aside and the appellant is convicted under Section 304-II of IPC.

¶50

The total period undergone by the appellant as on the date of grant of bail is more than 9 years, as such, we deem it suffice to inflict the sentence of period already undergone by the appeliant. Since the appellant is on bai1, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

¶51

L4. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

¶52

Sdi. K. SRINIVASA o JOINT REGIS //TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION^O ICER

1, The Vlll^{Additional Sessions Judge atWarangal'(with records)} i. in"^ri Aoaitional^{JudicialMagistriteof First Class, Warangal'}