Allowed

Armulla Devender, Karimnagar Dist. v. Sho, Jagtial Town P.S.

Telangana HC26 Nov 2024CRLA/780/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction and life sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The Court held that the dying declaration and police statement were contradictory and insufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 IPC, 498-A IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act set aside.

Armulla Devender, Karimnagar Dist. Vs Sho, Jagtial Town… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

NOTE : The AppellanU Accused No.1 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High court dated 09.01.2023 in t.A.No. 2 of 2022 in crt.A. trto. z6o ot 2016

¶2

[³⁴¹⁹¹

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 780 OF 2016

¶9

Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 29.07.2016 passed in S.C.No. 50 of 2015 on the fite of the Court of thall Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Armulla Devender, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged about 37 yrs, Bestha, Occ Private Employee, R/o. Vaninagar, Jagtial, Karimnagar District

¶12

...AppellanUAccused No.1

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep- by the Station House Officer, Jagtial Town Police Stltion, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶15

...RespondenUComplainant

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Bharadwaj Reddy Mothe

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUOGMENT

¶19

--,6---*7

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SIIRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.780 0F 2016

¶23

JUDGMENT: @er Hon,ble Sri Justice K.Sttentler)

¶24

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment. dated 29.07.2016, passed in S.C.No.SO of 2Ol5 on the file of II Additional Siessions Judge, Karimnagar ar J agtial, convicting the appellant/accused No.l for the offence punishable u:der Section 3O2 of Indian penal Code (for short IPCI and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. l OO,/ _, in default of payrnent of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

¶25

2 Heard Mr. Bharadwaj Reddy Mothe, learned co,nsel for the appeilzrnt/ accused and Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent_State.

¶26

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was rnarried to Sharada (hereinafter referred to as deceased) about 15 years prior to her death. The deceased was issueless for B years. The appellant went to

¶27

KS.J&JAK,J Crl.A.No.780^of20l6

¶28

¶29

Dubai and returned 4^{years prior to her death. The} appellant/ accused^{No.1 started harassing the deceased for} additiona-l dowry of 5^{lakhsabetted by hismother} Narsamma/accused^{No.2 and his brother Srinivas/accused} No.3. Panchayats were^{held and elders convincedthe} appellant and asked^{the appellantto take care of the} deceased. However,^{the appellant harassed the deceased} stating that deceased^{developed extra martialrelationship} with others and insulted^{the deceased- On 17 .O9} '2014^at 4:30 a.m., while the^{deceased was resting in her house,the} appellant poured^{keroseneon her and set her on fire' The} deceased was taken^{to Jagtial hospital with burn injuries'}

¶30

Initially, on the basis of^{the complaint filed by PWl,} who is mother of the^{deceased, crime was registeredunder} Sections 498-A and^{3O7 of IPC. and Sections 3 and 4 of} Dowry Prohibition Act,^{1961. The deceased underwent} treatment for nearly^{19 days and died on 06.10'2O14'The} deceased was treated^{by PW9/doctor. The Sectionof law} was altered to 498-A^{and 302 of IPC and Sections3 ar:d 4} of Dowry Prohibition^{Act, 1961. The chargesheetwas filed} under the Penal Provisions^Act _and^{Dowry prohibition Act}

¶31

'@&

¶32

¶33

KS.J&]AK,J Crl { No ;80 ol-10t6

¶34

against the appeliant arrayed as accused No.l and also accused No.2-mother of appellant and accused No.3brother of appr:llalt.

¶35

Learned llessions Judge found favour with the Dying Declaration that was recorded by the learned Magistrate which is Ex.Pl2 and also the statement recorded b1. the police which is Ex.p16. On the basis of the said statements made by the derceased, learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant hLad committed murder of the deceasecl by burning her, eLfter pouring kerosene on her. Hou,ever, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant, acctrsed No.2 and accusr:d No.3 for the offence under Sectio n 49g_A of IPC and also acquitted accused No.2 and accused No.3 for the offence under Section 302 of IpC.

¶36

The Dying Declaration/Ex.pl2 made to the learned Magistrate and the statement/Ex.p16 made to the police, would be relevant for adjudication.

¶37

7 . The Dying Declaration recorded by the learrred Magistrate, which is Ex.pl2, reads as follows:

¶38

"l wen t inside the house and slept. Today early morning at around 04:0O a.m., while I was

¶39

----5-_--

¶40

¶41

KS,J&JAK.J Crl.A No.7E0 of20l6

¶42

sleeping, I do not know when my husband poured kerosene and lit me on fire. When I felt that I was burning, I woke up. I observed that my dress was burning. I ran out shouting. Meanwhile, my brother in law, Sirnivas and my sister in law, Jamuna woke up and extinguished flames with a bed sheet. The reason for burning is my husband. This is true."

¶43

Ex.P16 is the statement made by the deceased to the Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation. According to him, he received complaint from PWl/Rutha Ammai, who is the mother of the deceased. The relevant portion of the statement reads as follows:

¶44

'On 17.O9.2O 14 at around 4:30 a.m., while I was sleeping, my husband Devender, his mother and his brother assisted my husband, who has an intention to kill me and poured kerosene on me and lit me on hre. Unable to bear the burns, I came out shouting and poured water on myself. Thereafter, I was taken to Jagtial hospital."

¶45

The scribe of Ex.P16 is not mentioned by PW13. However, in Ex.P16, there is an initial on the left side of complaint arld it is mentioned as PS, Jagtial. PW13 also signed on the right side of the statement. Having signed the statement of the deceased, PW13 did not speak about the

¶46

¶47

{S,]&JAK,J Crl A No 7tl0 ot 20 t6

¶48

statement being recorded in his presence or by any police personal of trS Jagtial

¶49

The Dying Declaration given to the learned Magistrate was recorde I on a typed format. However, the learned Magistrate hits taken the endorsement of duty doctor prior to recording r_he Dying Declaration and also after the Dying Declaration.

¶50

I i. In the Dying Declaration recorded b5z the learned Magistrate, deceased stated that she did not know when her husband poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire. When she sensed burning, she woke up and saw her dress was on hre. Then she started shouting and accused No.3_ Srinivas and trer sister_in-law, Jamuna, covered her rvith a bed sheet and put off the flames. As seen from both the statements made to the learned Magistrate arrd to the Police, there is any amount of difference. In the statement made to the pc,lice, the deceased stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 instigated appellant/accused No. 1, for which the appellant pour,ed kerosene on her and lit her on fire and she came out of the house shouting and poured water on

¶51

¶52

KS.,,&JAK.J C'l.,A No 780 of20t6

i j

I i

I I i

herself. The said statement made to the potce is contradictory to what was stated to the learned Magistrate. 12. In the statement that was recorded by the police which is Ex.p16, there is no date and time mentioned, when the statement was recorded. However, on the basis of Ex.PI6, FIR was registered at l2:OO noon on U.Og.2Ol4, which reached the learned Magistrate on lg.O9.2Ol4 at 0l:00 p.m.

¶57

1 3. The prosecution has relied on both the statements made to the learned Magistrate and also to the police, which are contradicting one another. In the statement to leamed Magistrate the deceased stated that she does not know when her husband poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire. There were also other persons in the house, apart from the husband. As stated in the Dying

¶58

Declaration, accused No.3 i.e., brother_in_law of the deceased and Jamuna i.e., sister_in_law of the deceased, were also in the house, who woke up and extinguished the flames with bed sheet. The said statement as already discussed made to the learned Magistrate is contradictory to what was stated to the police regarding the deceased

¶59

¶60

KI;,J&JAK,J CrlA.Nr.780 ol20l6

¶61

¶62

¶63

running out of the house and pouring water on herself to put off the flames.

¶64

The deceased survived for nearly 19 days before her death. No effc,rts were made to record her statement during the said 19 da5,s.

¶65

The only basis for convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IpC is the Dying Declaration made to the lt:arned Magistrate and the statement made to the Police, lvhich are contradicting one another and suspicion wasi expressed by the deceased that it was her husband who poured kerosene on her. In the said circumstances,, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.

¶66

It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Though the death was unnatural, horrever, prosecution's burden is to prove that death was horrricidal and such homicidal death was caused by the appellant. The said aspect was not proved by the prosecution.

¶67

¶68

KS. J &JAK, J
Cd.A No.780 ol 20l6 1

¶69

Accordingly,^{this Criminal Appeal is allowedand} the conviction and^{sentence imposed against the appellant}

¶70

in S.C.No.50 of 2015^{on the file of Il-AdditionalSessions}

¶71

Jpdge, Karminagar^{at Jagtial, is herebyset aside'}

¶72

AO Sd,^{- K. SRINIVASA} AR JOINT^REGIS

/,TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFTCER

To,

ir[=ru#qdn,;!ifi,i,11tr'i?,iJ***;,::sanaa

¶77

.^{g'rt"%ttS [?Y#""o*'iReddvMothe' AdvocatetoPuc]}

¶78

Two^CDCoPtes

Njb/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:2611112024

JUDGMENT

111E S r.,l 16
'(-
)
2 b 0EI ru{ az
)
*
r)ss
I

¶85

CRLA.No.780 of 2016

¶86

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

¶87

10^af['("[ W ;{fldt

Armulla Devender, Karimnagar Dist. v. Sho, Jagtial Town P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Armulla Devender, Karimnagar Dist. v. Sho, Jagtial Town P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Patharla Ramu and Another Vs the State of Ts., Rep. by P.P.

Govindaram Kanakaiah, Siddipet Town., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Mirza Zakki Baig, Nirmal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Velupula Ramu Vs the State of Telangan

Asif Khan Vs the State of Telangana

Kota Prasanna Laxmi, Warangal Dist. and Ano Vs Lethakuka Narender Reddy, Warangal and 2 Othrs