Allowed

Smt.G.Muttamma , Muttavva, Hyd., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC13 Feb 2025CRLA/1379/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal of the accused convuted of murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that the dying declaration was unreliable given the victim's 100% burn injuries and the presence of inconsistent statements. Following this doubt, the conviction was set aside and the appeal allowed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was allowed; conviction quashed; bail bonds cancelled.

Smt.G.Muttamma , Muttavva, Hyd., Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^341e 1

¶2

NOTE : The AppellanU Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the Hrgh Court dated 25-09-2023 in l.A.No.l-6f2023 in Crt.A.No .1379 oi 2017.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1379 of 2017

¶9

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 13-01-2016 passed in S.C.No.130 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt.G.Muttamma @ Muttawa, W/o. G.Shataiah, Age:53 years, Occ: GHI/C Contract Labour, R/o. H.No.13-1-273l'1 13, Gufa Mandir, Mangalhat, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

...AppellanUAccused

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Through SHO, PS, lr/langalhat, Hyderabad, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶15

...Respondent

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K. Neelakanteswara Rao

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,

¶18

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI {J{.FTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1379 OF 2017

¶22

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri nstice K.Surencler)

¶23

The Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.01.2016, in S.C.No.13O of 2015, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that on 24.O4.2014, around 1O:30 p.m. in the night, appellant went to the house of the deceased. The deceased was studying 6tt' class and she was sitting in front of the house. The appellant questioned deceased as to why she was sitting in front of the house, then the deceased replied that she had to work. The appellhnt asked for kerosene. The deceased informed that kerosene was available in the front yard. The appellant then took the kerosene tin, poured kerosene on deceased and set her on fire and fled. While fleeing, she threatened the deceased not to

¶26

¶27

inform anyone about the incidena, failing which the appellant would kill her. Hearing the deceased shout for help, the negibours came there and covered her with a gunny bag. Then her mother/P.W. 1, grandmother, grandfather and one Auto Rarriulu (not examined) shifted her to the hospitai.

¶28

The dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate around 2 a.m., on 25.O4.2014.

¶29

After the deceased died, inquest proceedings were conducted and the body was sent for post mortem examination. Post mortem Doctor opined the cause of death as burning.

¶30

The charge sheet was laid mainly on the basis of dying declaration that was recorded by the learned Magistrate /P.W.7. Even prior to dying declaration being recorded by the Magistrate, the statement of the victim was recorded by B.Anji Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police/P.W.5. In the statement given to P.W.S, victim stated that around 10 p.m. in the night, the appellant came to her house and took kerosene from the house, and poured it on her and lit her on fire. At that time, neighbours came there and poured water on her. Then P.W. l/mother, maternal grandmother, grandfather,

¶31

grandmother's sister, have all taken her to the hospital.

¶32

The statement recorded by*P.W.S and also^statement recorded by learned Magistrate formed basis to^convictthe appellant. P.W.l is not the witness to the^{alleged burning of} the deceased. P.W.2 stated. that she is a neighbor,^{seeing the} deceased on flames, they poured water on her and woke up P.W. 1/mother, who was stil1 sleeping in the house.^Relatives of P.W. I came there and shifted the deceased to the hospital.

¶33

B. The paternal grandmother, grandfather, and Auto Ramulu were not examined by the prosecution during trial, though, they were cited as L.Ws.4, 5, and 6. All three witnesses^{were given} up during trial by the Public Prosecutor.

¶34

The person named as Auto Ramulu was not identified by the Police during examination.

¶35

P.W.7 stated that victim was admitted in the hospital with 1OO% mixed flame burns.

¶36

The declaration given by the deceased becomes doubtful for the reason of deceased receiving 100%o burns. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sanjayl held that the dying declaration must inspire full confidence in its truthfulness ald correctness. Its intrinsic worth and reliability

¶37

' lzoo+1^{t: scc :r+}

¶38

¶39

can be determined from its tenor and contents. A woman sustaining 95% burn injuries, giving unnecessary minute details in the dying declaration, cannot be relied on.

¶40

The deceased in the statement recorded by p.W.4, at O0:40 hrs on 25.04.2014, stated as follows:

¶41

"I stay at the above mentioned address. Today i.e. on 24-4-2014 abottt 10 hours concerning water had quarrel with Gouda Muthamma. At that instance, Muthamma took the kerosene from my house, poured on to my body and set on fire. At that time the neighbors came and put water on my body. After that my mother, grandmother, china grandmother, grandfather all together brought me in the Auto to OGH hospital and admitted. There were quarrels between me and Muthamma frequentiy.

¶42

The Police have enquired the above said issues, I agree all is truth and signed her below."

¶43

In the statement given to P.W.6/Magistrate, at 2:IS a.rn. on 25.04.2014, it is stated as follows:

¶44

"Can you tel1 how your body is burnt?

¶45

Ans: My name is Bhavani. I am studying 6th class. Yesterday night about 10 hours I sweep the front yard and dumped wastage. Muthamma who stays next to our house asked me "do you have kerosene (gas no

¶46

¶47

¶48

one) in^{your house". Isaid why, she said "I have} work", then I said there^{is a 5 lts. Can frlled with} Kerosene on the shelf^{in our house. She took that} kerosene in another^{container and put on my body, lit} the fire on my body with^{match stick and fled away.} At that time, ali our household^{peoplewere sleeping'} Muthamma said "if^{you wake up your mother, I will} kill you". By hearing my^{screamsthe neighborshave} come and covered a^{gunny bag on my body and shut} the fires. Then, my mother,^grandmother, grandfather, Auto Ramulu and others^{brought me to} this hospital in Auto Ramulu^{Auto. Muthammawas} picking quarrel often with me.^She don't^{tolerate at} all, if she sees me. Our family^{members wont talk to} Muthamma's family."

¶49

L4. In the first statement^{made toP.W.4,the deceased} narrated that there was^{quarrel in between the appellantand} herself. The quarrel was in between^{her and the appellant and} in the said quarrel, the appellant took^{kerosene,poured on her} and set her on fire. Further coming^{to the statementmade} before the Magistrate, it was stated^{by the victim that the} appellant went to her and asked^{her whether there was} kerosene ancl the deceased asked her^{the reason,then the} appellant replied that she has some work. The appellant then went into the house, poured kerosene in another container and

¶50

¶51

¶52

doused deceased with kerosene and lit her on fire. The two statements are contradicting one another.

¶53

The Honble Supreme Court in similar circumstances in State of Maharashtra v. Sanjayz, held that unnecessary minute details were given by the deceased when she was in a serious condition. Similar is the situation in the present case. The narration before the Magistrate, giving all the details, gives rise to suspicion regarding its correctness, when the appellant received 100% burn injuries. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶54