Partly allowed

Rasamalla Kumar , Kumaraswamy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Mar 2025CRLA/72/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband convicted under Section 302 IPC for setting his wife on fire after she poured kerosene on herself during a quarrel. Relying on the dying declaration and finding no premeditation in a spousal quarrel, the High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to seven years.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and altered to Section 304-II IPC; sentence reduced to seven years' imprisonment.

Rasamalla Kumar , Kumaraswamy Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

3i:1;,\l?^{-,;[""ff:i't"iExi.::]:;3,Yi: ,t:-"::i]%3;''eJ"3;T^?J'?1'?',0'13"}

¶2

[^{3453 ]}

¶3

oF TELANGANA rN rHE^H|GH "or*lf3$otffoBt#E

¶4

TUESDAY,^{THE EIGHTEENTHDAY OF MARCH} '"-ffio riiousnr'ro AND TWENTY FlvE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE .' HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK'SURENDER} AUS''"= E'v' THE HONOURABLE^{SRI J} 'ENUG.PAL

¶7

ALNO:72^OF20'18 CRIMI^NALAPPE

¶8

n t["" c ri m^{i n a r Ap p e a r f l edu n3"J} ?' l;: i [o^gl i# dated^{10.02201 7 Passed.} fi : :J'irt"?'#?'u^"l ^"^i,i;"fii"' E?iiJipri^{s"*tns Judge, waransal}

¶9

Between: R/o. Nizampally^{Village'Regonda Mandal'} Rasamalla^{Kumar @ KumaraswamY'} Warangal^District'

¶10

...Accused/APPella^nt

¶11

^-"Ilri:trr:'#?il3'di:tJ"?'ruli:,i::?5'i'"*utor'^{Highcourt orJudicature at}

¶12

.. ComPlainant^/ResPondent

¶13

Counsel^{for the Appellant :Sri S Sridhar}

¶14

Counsel^{for the Respondent: Sri ArunKumarDodla'Additional} Public^Prosecutor

¶15

The Court^{delivered the following: Judgment}

.1-iH

THE HONOURABLE SRI.JUSTICE K.SURENDER THE HoNouRABLE E. v. vENucopAL "*r".I#""r"E CRIMINAL APPEAL No.720F 2018 JUDGMENTi (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surentler)

¶20

The Appeai is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.02.2072, in S.C.No.92 of 2OtS, on the file of Principai Sessions Judge, Warangal. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

¶21

2 . Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additionai Public Prosecutor for respondent_State.

¶22

According to the case of the prosecution, the appeliant and the deceased were married 1O years prior to the incident. The deceased gave birth to one daughter and one son. Being addicted to alcohol, the appe,ant was ,I treating the deceased on a regular basis. The said harassment was abetted by accused Nos.2 to 7 (acquitted). The incident happened on 05.05.2014, around s p.m There was a quarrer between the appellant and the deceased regarding a family issue. Unable to bear the attitude of the appellant during the quarrel, the

¶23

¶24

deceased Poured^{keroseneon herself, and the appellant set her} on fire

¶25

was filed^{bY the father ofthe} 4. The^comPlaint deceased/P.W'1'^{Inthe complaint'itisalleged that the} appellant^{and the in-laws of the deceasedwere harassingthe} deceased,^{and unable to beartheharassment, the deceased} committed^{suicide'While} poured^{kerosene on herselfand} und.ergoing^{treatment at MGM hospital' Warangal' the deceased} died.^{In the complaint'P'W' 1 further stated that the reason for} the deceased^{attempting suicide was the appellant and his} relatives.^{The suicide was the result of constant harassment'} both PhYsical^{and mental'}

¶26

A requisition^{was given to the concerned jurisdictional} Magistrate^{for recording the dyingdeclaration of the deceased'} The Magistrate^{started recording the statementof the deceased} at 1:05^{a.m. on 06'05'2014' after asking preliminaryquestions'} Even^{prior to recording the statement' the Doctor endorsedthat} the deceased^{was in a fit statement of mind' conscious'and} coherent^{to give the statement'After the said certiflcation'the} Magistrate^{askedthe deceased about the reasonfor her burns'} The translation^{of the answergiven by the deceased is extracted} as under:

¶27

¶28

-aryT

¶29

"Q. What happened, hotu it happened, tell me?

¶30

Ans. Since 9 gears of mg marriage, my husband. uas suspecting mu charo.cter. He used to suspect me uthen I tatked. u.tith angone. He uorks as a laborer. He used. to consume liquor and. beat me u_tith sticks or pestle. He used_ uulgar language bg suspecting mg character. I also d_o labour work. He used to collect mon, abuse me in fi.tths ,";,T:^::'":T::?r:: :;;::^r; tuhen theg came to mg house. He d.id. not allow me to go mA parent's house. I haue tuo child.ren. One d.aughter and. one son. Mg daughter, is 9 years and. mg son is 6 gears old. He used to suspect mg character uhen I uent to coolte utork. He did not allota me sit outsid.e of mg house. He used_ to abuse mg daughter and son. Four times blood. oozed. from mg mouth and. ears. He sold mg reg chains. preuiousrg he poured kerosene on me. Night at 9_15 hours he tried to pour kerosene on me. Then due to unbearable harassment, I poured. kerosene on mgsel"f. He encouraged me to pour kerosene. Then he set fi.re. Then I ran toutard.s mg brother,s house to saue mgself. My in_ Iaws also used to harass utith abusiue utord.s. Somebodg couered me with a blanket. The son of mg junior matemal aunt and other relatiues shified me to hospital. Due to harassment and abusiue words I haue d_one like thi_s. Mg husband. is responsible for mg situation. Mg in_laus, mg sister_in_la uL and her husband used_ to cooperate uith my husband_,,. Certification bu dutu doctor

¶31

Patient is conscloug coherent ond. in a fit state of mind. throughout recording statement,,.

¶32

¶33

On the^{basis of the dying declarationsrecorded by the} Magistrate,^{though the FIR was registeredunder Section 498-A} of IPC^{and for womanburning'however' the charge sheet was} laid for^{the offence underSection 3O2 of IPC' and also included} Sections^{306 and 498-Aof IPC' The appellantwas arrayedas} A-1, and^{A-2, A-3, and A-7 werealso prosecuted' During the} course^{of trial, P'Ws'1 to 1 1 turned hostileto the prosecution} case.^{P.Ws' 1 to 11 are the relatives and the independent} witnesses.^{P'W 12, who is a photographer'speaks about taking} photographs^{at the scene' P'Ws' 13 to 16 also turned hostile'} They are^{the witnesses to the scene of offence panchnama'} LearnedSessionsJudgemainlyplacedrelianceonthedying declaration^{of the deceased'and convictedthe appellant/A-1'}

¶34

7 . The basis^{for placing reli'ance on the dying declaration is} that a^{dyrngman or woman would not lie while apprehending} death.

¶35

It must^{be examinedwhether the dying declaration can be} relied upon^{for convictingthe appellant' The deceasedstated} before the^{Magistrate that since the past 9 years of marriage '} her husband^{had been suspectingher character'Whenevershe} spoke to^{anyone, he would' abuse her in vulgar language' take} money from^{her, and insult her parents' Whenever she went}

¶36

¶37

a.. i-

¶38

for coolie work, the appellant suspected that she was having an affair with someone. He was a labourer and used to consume liquor. On one occasion, when the appellant beat the deceased, blood oozed from her mouth and ears. On the date of the incident, there was an altercation between them, and unable to bear the harassment, she poured kerosene on herseif. The appellant encouraged her, and after she poured the kerosene, the appellant set her on fire. Thereafter, she ran to the house of her cousin.

¶39

p.W.t has lodged the complaint alleging that there was constant harassment by the appellant, and for the said reason, the deceased committed suicide. However, p.W. I completely turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not support the contents mentioned in the complaint that was filed by him, which is Ex.p. 1.

¶40

As already stated, a[ the independent witnesses and the relatives of the deceased, have not stated anything against the appellant. The only evidence that is available before the trial Court, and now for adjudication, is the dying declaration.

¶41

Though there is no independent corroboration from any quarter, however, it can be safely inferred from the statement of the deceased that consuming alcohol and fights between the

¶42

¶43

spouses^{were a regularoccllrrence' Even on the said day'} according^{to the victim, she pouredkeroseneon herself' and} then the^{appellant alleged'ly set her on frre'Against the} background^{of a quarrel between the spouses and the appellant} being in a^drunkenstate '^{itcannotbe said that therewas} premeditation^{on the part of the appellant to causethe death of} the deceased.

¶44

T2.TheHon,bleSupremeCourt,inMohd.RafiqAliasKallu

¶45

vs. State^{of Madhya Pradestrl'held as under:-}

¶46

"The^{question of whether in a given case' a homicideis} murder,^{punishable under Section 302 of IPC or culpable} homicideofeitherdescription,punishableunderSection 3O4 of^{IPC, has engaged the attention of courts in India for} over one-and-a-ha1f-century'^{since the enactmentof the} IPC. A^{welter of case law' on the aforesaid aspect exists'} including^{perhaps severalhundred rulings by the Supreme} Court.Theuseoftheterm..like$inseveralplacesin respect^{of culpablehomicide' highlights the element of} uncertainty^{that the act of the accused may or maynot} have killed^{the person' Section3OO IPC which dehnes} ,,murder", however refrains from the use^{of the term likelg'} whichrevealsabsenceofambiguityleftonbehalfofthe accused.^{The accused is for sure that his act will defrnitely} cause death.^{lt is often difhcutt to distinguish between} culpable^{homicide and murder as both involve death'Yet'}

¶47

1 (2021)10 scc 706

¶48

¶49

there is a subtle distinction of intentior involved in both the crimes. Sr"h diff.:.:::,|.:.ff: degree of the act. . e gre e or in ten tio n ",. u.. J:.*" " j" ff f ;J.T:..: :r

¶50

The burns that were received by the deceased were on account of the quarrel that ensued between the spouses. The deceased poured kerosene on herself, and after the flames were extinguished, she was taken to the hospital, where it was stated that she had received gg% burns. In the present circumstances, when the burning incident happened during a fight between spouses, premeditation or intent to cause death cannot be inferred. Keeping in view the background of the case' we deem it appropriate to convert the conviction to one under Section 304_II of IpC. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 3O2 of IpC is set aside. The appellant is sentenced to undergo 7 years of imprisonment under Section 3O4_II of IpC.

¶51

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

¶52

SD/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// R,SECT IUN OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

The Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal. (with records, if any)

¶55

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Charlapalli, Ranga Reddy District

¶56

The Judicial Magistrate Magiskate of I Class, Parkal, Hanumakonda District

¶57

The Station House Officer, Parkal Police Station, Hanumakonda District.

¶58

One CC to Sri S Sridhar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

Two'CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶60

Two CD Copies

ADK/gh

?n-

.,3

HIGH COURT

DATED:18 tO3t2O2S

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.T2 ot 2O1B

i:..,
" -i\ o^: 1.,
,.)
.' 0 2 sEP 2025
"v
*: ..
C;., , ,,/
--:j:.
--.- -.- r,

¶69

PARTLY ALLOWNG THE CRLA

¶70

w ,5

Rasamalla Kumar , Kumaraswamy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasamalla Kumar , Kumaraswamy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guduri Raju, Gujarat State Vs the State of Ts., Rep. by P.P.

Konda Raju, Siricilla., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Akuleni Indira, Sircilla Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P.

Raja Arjun Vs State of Telangana

Syed Shareef Vs the State of Telangana

Mohammad Khaja Moinuddin, Nalgonda Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.