Partly allowed

Shanker Rao Chinde, Hyderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC30 Jan 2025CRLA/1028/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband convicted of murdering his wife by pouring kerosene and setting her alight during a drunken quarrel over food. Relying on the dying declaration and eyewitnesses, the High Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, applying Exception-4 for absence of premeditation, and reduced sentence to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction altered from S.302 IPC to S.304 Part I IPC; sentence reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment; period already undergone set off; appeal partly allowed.

Shanker Rao Chinde, Hyderabad., Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^341e ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE^{THIRTIETHDAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEANIL KUMAR JUKANTI}

¶6

CRIMINAL APP^{EAL NO:1028 0F 2017}

¶7

Criminal Appeal^{filed under Section} ln-Ql 9t^{Cr'P C} '^{agarnst the Judgment} OateO ii-OZ-2017'passed^{in SC.1.fo ZAS of ZbiO on the file of the Court of the} ivXiaiii"irr Nll"t;.Flit*^{Sessions Judge,at Lb Nagar, Ranga Reddv District'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shanker Rao^{Chinde,S/o. NanduRaoChindeOcc:Hamali R/o' TNGOs} 6ortn1l, rrt"orn^{naldnUrinagir Mandal, N/oKishanbagh' Hyderabad'}

¶10

...Acc used/APPella^nt

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{rep. by the Public Prosecutor'High Courtof} Telangana and^{Andhra Pradesh.Hyderabad'}

¶13

...RespondenUComPlainant

¶14

Counsel for the^{Appellant: Sri S RamReddy}

¶15

Counsel for the^{Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional} Public Prosecutor

¶16

The Court delivered^{the following: Judgment}

¶17

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR

¶19

CRIMINA LAPPEAL No. LO28 0F 2017

¶20

JUDGMEIII: (per Hon'hle Sri Jttstice K.Surender)

¶21

1 . This ilppeal is frled aggrieved by the judgmen r dated 13.O2.2O1'/ in S.C.No.289 of 2Ot6, passed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at L.B.nagar. Ranga Reddy, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 498-4 and 302 of IpC and sentencing him to undergo lifi: imprisonment.

¶22

Hearrl Mr. S Ram Reddy, learned counsel for aptellant and Mr. l)odla Arun Kumar, learned Additional public Prosecutor eppearing on behalf of respondent_State.

¶23

The aopellant,s wife was taken to the hospital witlr burn injuries. The incident happened on 20.72.2075. On the said day, the apoellant went to his house and quarrelecl rvith his deceased rvr f,: in a drunken condition. The reason grv en by the decease,l, in her dying declaration, is that the apF,ellant was ful1y drr.rnk and for the reason of the curry, tha I was cooked, nol being tasty, appellant scolded her, p()ured kerosene on her and lit her on frre. pWl is the mother of the deceased, slrr: was present in the house when the inr.ident

¶24

¶25

:i:li'

¶26

had taken^{place. According to PW1, appellantwas habituated} to drinking^{and used to beat her daughter askingfor money'} On the date of^{incident, in a drunken condition' he poured} kerosene^{on deceasedafter quarrellingwith her and lit fire} with match box,^{whichwas in his pocket' WhtlePW1 was} trying tried to^{rescue her daughter, she also received burn} injuries.

¶27

The deceased^{was taken to the hospital'In the hospital'} requisition^{was given to the Magistratefor recording dying} declaration.^{Dying declaration was recordedon 2l122Ol5'} at 1O.40 A.M.^{Dutydoctor certified that the patient was} conscious, coherent^{and was in fit status of mind to give} statement.^{Magistratewent on to ask preliminaryquestions'} to satisfy himseif^{regardingthestatus of mind of the} deceased. After^{satisfyinghimself, the Magistrate asked the} deceased as^{to what happened'The deceased gave her} statement,^{which is as follows:}

¶28

"Yesterday ni8ht^{at 07 O0 hours, myhusband} Shankar came"fully-drr.nk^{Everyday he comes drunk'} While eating^{food,on the pretextthe muttoncurry} cooked is not^{tasty,scolded, por'rredkerosene} "o.rt.i.r"a^{in Kerosene tin on me and lit withmatch} ftllv mother and^{my daughterwerealso in house'} "ii.f.. Neishbours came^{and poured waler on me and lhey} ;.;";i me to hospital.^{My husband comes drunk} a-fvi"a fights^{withme and abuses me badly"}

¶29

¶30

On the basis of the dying declarartion a:td also statement of PWl, learned Sessions Judgc conviited the appellant ftrr the offence under Section 3O2 of IpC.

¶31

Learned counsel for. appellant would submit that a case of suicide rvas projected as a case of murder. The d,:ceased received 60'% burns and in such a condition, giving sti rtement to the M agistrate is highly dou btful. pW2, u4_ro is the daughter c,[ deceased, has stated that pW1 was not prt,sent in the house zrnd appellant was not responsible for thi burns received b'. her mother. For the said reason, the cor.viction has to be s--t aside.

¶32

PW1 is the mother of deceased, she lodgr:d the complaint/ Ex. P I stating the involvement of the appel lant in burnrng tht deceased

¶33

8, PW2 srtated that appellant poured kerosene t n her mother anc lit hcr on fire, for the reasons of not pre paring food properly. The version given by pW2, stating th,rt her grald-mother was not present, is of no help to the appellant. In fact, PW!,, daughter of the appellant had clearly state d that appellant went home ancl he poured kerosene on der.eased and lit fire ro her on the ground that chicken curry wirs not properly prt,pared. Even in the dying declaration, dec.eased

¶34

¶35

stated that the^{husband was fully drunk and thereafter, on} thb pretext of the^{food not being tasty, he lit her on fire, after} pouring kerosene.

¶36

g. From the evidence of^{PWs.l, 2, and dying declaration,} there leaves no^{room for doubt regarding the involvementof} the appellant in^{burninghis wife, after dousing her with} kerosene and^{litting her on fire.}

¶37

However, the^{incident happened when the appellant} was in a fully drunken^{state and there was a quarrel in} between the deceased^{and appellant.Under Exception-4 of} Section 300 of^{IPC, culpable homicide is not murder, if it is} committed without^{premeditation, in a suddenfight or in the} heat of passion upon^{a sudden quarrel'Appellanthad gone} home in a fully drunken^{condition, and during quarrelwith} his wife, he^{pouredkeroseneon her and lit her on ltre lt} cannot be said that^{there was any premeditationin the act of} the appellant. It^{was asudden hght and inthe heatof} passion, appellant had^{poured keroseneon her and lit her on} fire.

¶38

Since the^{incidenthappened during a heatedargument} in between the spouses,^{this Court deems it appropriate to} convict the appellant^{for the offence under Section 304 - I of}

¶39

)

¶40

IPC, selrr,encing him to und.ergo g years rigorous imprisonrnent, whiie setting aside the convictior L under Section 3t) 2 of IPC.

¶41

\2. Acc r-dingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allorved. Srnce the appellant is in jail, the period of impris:nment, already un,:lergone by the appellant, shall be set-off.

¶42

Sd/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA^VARMA JOIN'1' REGISTRAR

¶43

//TRUE COPY// I FICER !)",io* o, ,)

¶44

To,

¶45

The lV Additional lVletropolitan^{SessionsJudge, at Lb.Nagar,langa Reddy} District. (with re:ords. if^anY)

¶46

2.' The Vlll hrletropolitan^{[r/agistrate,Cyberabad at Rajendranagar}

¶47

The Superintencient, Central^{Prison, Cherlapalli,RangaReddy District}

¶48

Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor, High Courtfor the State of -'elanganaat} Hyderabad [O1..]'li

¶49

One CC to Sri S Ram^{Reddy,Advocate} [OPIJC]

¶50

6 Two CD Copie ;

ADKpy

HIGH COURT

DATED:3010112025

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.1028 ot 2017

r:l\ F,I E S ,^t
(
os
J'
)
,9i) 2 5 ;rl ;,135
'-" .',,
,/
<br>

¶57

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA

¶58

4 ""qRA fu.

Shanker Rao Chinde, Hyderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanker Rao Chinde, Hyderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

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

Nallagundla Vijaya Hanman, Mahabubnagar and Anr., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

The State of Telangana Vs Mudrina Anjaneyulu Aka Anji

The State of Telangana Rep Pp., Vs Parepalli Bheemaiah, Nennel Mandal and Anr.

The State of Telangana Rep by Pp., Vs Sama Narsimha Reddy, Patancheru and 2 Otrs.

Golla Mogulaiah, Mahabubnagar Dt and 3 Otrs., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Erigipalli Prasad (A-1), Rr.Dt and 6 Otrs., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.