Allowed

Palle Hanumanth Reddy, Rr.Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC23 Jan 2025CRLA/643/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, convicted under Section 302 IPC for the death of his wife, appealed. The High Court noted discrepancies between dying declarations where the deceased accused the appellant of setting her on fire and statements where she claimed suicide after a quarrel. Relying on Supreme Court precedents requiring caution with contradictory dying declarations, the Court set aside the conviction and

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant released on bail.

Palle Hanumanth Reddy, Rr.Dt., Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^341s l

¶2

llolF i^{The Appelranu Accused was directed} to be rereased on bair by the order of the High court dated 21-12-2022 in r.A.r',ro.r or iozz;; c;rAN;'il5"oi'ziiit"'*'

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENry THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER ANO THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶7

CRIMINAL APP EAL N o:643 of 2017

¶8

Appeal under Section 374(2) of cr.p.c aggrieved by the Judgment dated 09-01-2017 passed in s.c.No.32B of 201s on the fire of the court of the speciar Sessions Judge-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ma habubnagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Palle Hanumanth Reddy. S/o. Krishna Reddv. Aoe: 34 J;ri;;rVir;;;: srir*'.=iJdio'r',,rrndar, Ransa nirooi oirtliJfars' occ: Labour, R/o.

¶11

...AppellanUAccused

¶12

AND

¶13

fi's's,:L'""lT"g3lilXjB,lri,,.,,if [?jJs:f, :[yJ;[g:f ", n or J ud icatu re ror

¶14

...RespondenUComplainant

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri p. prabhakar Reddy

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additionat^prtii" pio"""rto.

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.ST]RENDER aTd HON'BLE SRI J(,SrICE ANIL KT'MAR JT'KANTI

¶19

CRIMINAJ. APPEAI No.643 OF 2O1Z

¶20

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surender)

¶21

The appellant is aggrieved by his conviction under Section 3O2 of IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.328 of 2015 dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, filed the present appeal.

¶22

Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶23

The deceased is the wife of the appellant. She was taken to the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on 03.05.2O14 by the appellant. Since she received burn injuries, the police was informed. The police constable namely Sri Ramulu (HC No.667), (not examined) of Keshampet Police Station went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. It was received in the police station on 04.05.2014 at 1O.OO a.m. Though it was mentioned in the statement that it was recorded on 03.05.2014 at Osmania General Hospital, however time was not mentioned. The said statement was marked as Ex.PlO. learned Magistrate was requested to record the Dying Declaration. The

¶24

¶25

Magistrate received requisition on 03.O5.2014 at 8.O0 a.m. He went to the Osmania General Hospital and recorded the Dying Declaration of the deceased, which is Ex.P7. The third statement was recorded by the Subinspector of Poiice/P.W.14 of Keshampet Police Station. P.W. 14, having received Ex.P1O, which was recorded by the Police Constable, went to the Osmania General Hospital and again recorded Ex.Pl4 statement.

¶26

In the statement given to the police under Exs.PlO and P14, the victim narrated that on the date of the incident, there was a quarrel in between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant, who is the husband suspected the deceased of having illicit intimacy with someone else and complained that she was not participating in sexual intercourse with him, for the said reason, vexed with the attitude of the appellant, she poured kerosene on to herself and set herself ablaze. Unable to bear the pain, she shouted, the appellant extinguished flames and shifted her to the hospital. However, coming to the Dying Declaration given to the learned Magistrate, the deceased stated that the appellant used to beat her every day after consuming alcohol. On the date of the incident, he poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The appellant then fearing his act of burning the deceased, extinguished flames and took her to the hospital.

¶27

¶28

P.W. 1 is^{the securit5r guard Venkateshwara Hatcheries' P'W'2 is the} Assistant^{Administrative OIficer in Venkateshwara Hatcheries' P'W'4is} the mother^{of the deceased and P'W'9 is the inquest MRO' whostated} that t1le^{deceased'committed suicideby burning herself after dousing} with kerosene.

¶29

Learned^{counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that} two contradicting^{versionsare givenby the victim.In Exs'Plo and P14'} which are^{thestatements recorded by the Head Constableand} P.W.14/^{Sub-Inspectorof Police' respectively'the deceasedstated that} she committed^{suicide by burning herself' However' in her statementto} the Magistrate,^{the deceased stated that the appellant poured kerosene} on to^{herself'aldset fire' The said contradictory versionscannot be} considered^{to record conviction'}

¶30

7 . karned^{counselrelied on the judgment of the Hon'bleSupreme} Court in^{the case of lleeralalv' State of Madhya Pradeshr'The Honlcle} supreme^{court in view of the discrepancies in two dying declarationsset} aside the conviction'^{InSamadhanDhudaka Koli v'Stateof} Maharashtra^{2 ,the Hon'bleSupreme Court found that there were}

¶31

'^{l2OO9)12 SuPremeCou'tCases 571} '^{(zoos)re srPr"."courtcases705}

¶32

¶33

rnconsistent and contradictory dying declarations and a,owed the appeal and acquitted the accused therein.

¶34

a In Heeralal v. State of Madhya pradesh (supra), it was held as follows:

¶35

7O. The tial court and the tl9n lurt canle to abrupt conclusions on the purporlect possibilirg it tne ,.t iiZ"Vtn" accused mau ffiZ::f i":;',i!:,i:'::"-^?,s:;;;;'iit"ga.iu,,;;"'";,2 .-i,!:::., i" !;; " fr;; :;, ;."x#"::, h'fP ;trk* w. ;?; ff '"f ::ff :;:.::;,tf:",';:**'"to""iio'lJEi*"thatnobody so, in uiew ;i ;;;"rf^{*"" recording the statement.} Tta beini discrepancies in the ,;; ;;;;; decrorations it ,jrrr,i ni!,l""nt tsafe to conuict the appe ant.

¶36

TIE conuiction is se-t asijl The appeal is alloued.. Let the appellant oe tn atstody be released in connection from utith custodg aij otiJr;;:;.*forth;{i;^l;, he is required to 9 In Samadhan Dhudaka Koli v. State of Maharashtra(supraf , it

¶37

was held as follows

¶38

'f8. Consislencg in thc duino dett^.^* lacto r su c h a',-eL ;; ";^{; : ::i:;iz::f; #} W: :;ritr;: t ::: rnconsistcrt stand is laken bg ,l* d"*"""; ;;,;.;; d.ectarations, tn"y rnouii iot,o" ""*i.iil;;;;:2 ril"ff:::; :::tr, t;:::;r:",,, as a rule of prudence. conoboration m", b;";;;;;;-m oth.er euidence " ii i"""*tT' i,r u state or ;:";'1, lt li^ro"a.' "i ,;1,:^i;;:,:;d':;;::'"::a::::::":nf^?;'J"s:::#

¶39

oq"i"?,"!"T't!Z:i;'::;'::*bts^{be based on a} d.vi^s dectnration. But, uituntariry "io"i-iniii,l' :!:::y-mult^{b: hetd} 6 tiue been rend.ered : ::!1 "''f ".'i^{;; i;;} " ;;:;l *ffi" ;:w,#,:;# tr "#*i starld ";'*in aeceased hersetf had taien contradictorC "il"i;Listent

¶40

¶41

)

¶42

different dging declarations. They, therefore, should. not be accepted on their face ualue. Caution, in this behalf, is required to be applied.'

¶43

The Court noticed that as the deceased attibuted the acts pimailA on her porents-in-lano and theg hnuing been acquitted, it utas difficult to Lnld that the appellant alone taas responsible for causing her death. "

¶44

As already discussed, in the first Dying Declaration given to the Head Constable and the third Dying Declaration recorded by P.W. 14, the deceased stated that after the fight in between herself and the appellant, when the appellant expressed that he was suspecting her of having illicit relation with someone else, she was vexed with such attitude of^the appellant and poured kerosene on herself and lit fire.^{However, in the} statement to the learned Magistrate, ttre deceased did not^{state anlrthing} about the appellant suspecting her or^{there being a quarrel on the said} day, as stated in Exs.PlO and P14. The^deceased stated^{that the /} appellant used to beat her every day after consuming alcohol.^{On t-he} date of incident, he^poured kerosene on her^{and set her ablaze. Apart} from the discrepalt and contradicting dying^{declarations,there is no} other statement made by any of the^{witnesses to infer that the appellant} had poured kerosene on the deceased^{and set her on fire.}

¶45

In view of the facts of the^{presentcase,when two different versions} are given by the deceased about her^receiving burn^{injuries,the Court} has to look into other evidence, if any, to^{corroborate the versionof the} appellant causing burns to the deceased. In fact,^{the other witnesses,}

¶46

¶47

who are P.Ws.l, 2 and 4 stated that the deceased committed suicide. Even during the inquest proceedings, the witnesses present, stated to P.W.9, who is Inquest MRO that the deceased committed suicide.

¶48

It would be unsafe and improper to place reliance on the statement given to the Magistrate, which is totally contradictory to the version in Exs.Pl0 and P14 to convict the appellant. Accordingly, conviction has to be set aside.

¶49