* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND *THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA +CRIMINAL APPEAL No.719 of 2007 %Dated 13-12-2010 B e t w e e n: # Banoth Basu (A1), s/o.Ravuja, aged 35 years, r/o.Salar Thanda of Mahabubabad Appellant/Accused No.1 And $ The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondent/complainant ! Counsel for the Appellant : Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy ^ Counsel for Respondent. : Public Prosecutor < GIST : > HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred : --- [1] 2007(1) ALT (Crl.) 260 (DB) (A.P.) 2 1997 (1) ALD (Crl.) 620 (A.P) 3 1994 Crl.L.J. 237 (SC) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.719 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) This criminal appeal is filed by Accused No.1 against his conviction and sentence in S.C.No.367 of 2006 vide judgment dated 15.12.2006 on the file of the court of VI Additional Sessions Judge (III- FTC), Warangal at Mahabubabad, wherein Accused No.1 was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and he was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: A.1 is the husband of the deceased-Banoth Maji and brother of A2 to A4. A1, A3 and A4 are residents of Salar Thanda of Mahabubabad and A2 is a resident of Rajole village. About 15 years ago, the marriage between A1 and deceased took place as per caste customs. PWs.1 and 2, parents of the deceased, gave Rs.10,000/- to the accused on demand. After the marriage, the deceased joined the company of A.1 and led happy marital life and they were blessed with two sons i.e. PW.3-Banoth Ramesh and PW.4-Banoth Balaji. Thereafter, A.1 was addicted to alcohol and started harassing the deceased physically and mentally demanding her to give money for consumption of alcohol and A2 to A4 also supported A1. Due to the constant harassment, the deceased approached her parents (PWs 1 and 2) and elders, PW.11, PW.9 who held a panchayat and warned A1 and advised him to look after the welfare of the deceased and children properly. Then, A1 took the deceased and his two children with him to his place. But, A1 did not change his attitude. While things stood thus, on 5.2.2006, as usual at 7.00 p.m., A1 returned to his house after consuming alcohol, picked up a quarrel with the deceased, abused her, beat her and pushed his sons PW.3 and PW.4 outside the house and picked up MO1-small kerosene tin, poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. Then A1 came out of the house, closed the door and bolted from outside and the deceased, due to fire, sustained severe burn injuries and raised hue and cry, and the same was witnessed by PW.3 and PW.4 and also neighbours PWs 5 to 7. Immediately, PWs 3 and 4 rushed to their grand-parents –PWs 1 and 2 and informed them about setting her ablaze by A1 after pouring kerosene on the deceased. A.1 escaped and absconded from Thanda. Then, PWs 1 and 2 shifted the deceased to Area Hospital, Mahabubabad for treatment and PW.1 gave Ex.P.1 report to the Police. Later. she succumbed to burn injuries on 19.2.2006 at about 7.30 a.m. while undergoing treatment. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet. 3. The trial court, after taking into consideration the material placed before it and after hearing both sides, framed charges under Section 498-A IPC against A1 to A4 and Section 302 IPC against A1 and the same were read over and explained to A1 to A4, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 18 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.20 were got marked besides marking M.Os.1 to 3. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 5. The trial court, after taking into consideration the evidence placed on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, found Accused No.1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC while acquitting A2 to A4 of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Consequently, A1 was convicted of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and was further convicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the above conviction and sentences, Accused No.1 preferred the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for appellant-accused No.1 contended that the trial court failed to see that PWs 3 and PW.4 are planted witnesses; that there is inconsistency in the evidence of material prosecution witnesses; that the trial court should have seen that PW.7-alleged eye witness, PWs 9 to 11- Panchayat elders, PW.13 inquest panch and PW.14-confessional panch did not support the case of the prosecution and that there was abnormal delay in lodging Ex.P.1 report. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, though they are parents of the deceased, cannot be brushed aside since their evidence is corroborated by eye witnesses PWs 3 and 4. Further, the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is corroborated by other eye witnesses i.e. PWs 5, 6 and 7. In view of the evidence of PWs 1 to 7 and other material witnesses as well as documentary evidence, the trial court has rightly convicted A1 under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the point that arises for consideration before this court is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, as held by the trial court? 9. To decide the point, it is necessary to examine the evidence of material prosecution witnesses. 10. PW3, who is the son of A1 and the deceased-Banoth Maji, deposed that his father was idle at the house without doing any work and his mother used to attend cooli work and earn money. A1 used to demand money from his mother and consume country made liquor by taking money from his mother and A1 used to abuse his mother in filthy language and beat her in an intoxicated state. PW.3 deposed that on the date of the incident, his mother (deceased) returned from coolie work and his father (A1) took money from her, went and consumed country made liquor, returned to the house in the drunken condition and beat him and his brother PW.4. After that A1 poured kerosene on his mother and set her ablaze after sending him out and his brother from the house by beating them. PW.3 deposed that A.1, after pouring kerosene and setting her mother ablaze, came out and locked the door from outside. When his mother was in flames inside the house, the neighbours PW5, PW.6 and PW.7 came and pushed A.1 aside, opened the door, brought his mother outside the house and laid her on the ground. Then, he along with his brother- PW.4 went to his grand parents’ (PWs 1 and PW.2) house and informed them about the act of A1 pouring kerosene on his mother and setting her ablaze. PW.3 and his brother- PW.4 also informed PWs 1 and 2 about the act of PWs 5 to 7 coming and pushing aside A1 and opening the door and bringing his mother and laying her in front of their house. Then, his grand father- PW.1 came to their house and shifted his mother to the hospital. PW.3 deposed that his grand father admitted his mother in the Area hospital, Mahabubabad and he was in the hospital till Ex.P.1 report was filed. PW.3 deposed that nobody was present in the hospital to attend his mother except his grand parents (PWs 1 and 2) and on the next day, PW.1 gave Ex.P.1 report to the Police. PW.3 further deposed that the incident occurred at 7.00 p.m. on Sunday and his grand father-PW.1 gave Ex.P.1 report on Monday evening. In his cross examination, he denied a suggestion that there was any quarrel between A.1 and the deceased with regard to the issue of purchasing cycle for PW.4 and A1 poured kerosene on himself to commit suicide. PW.1 stated that on Saturday A1 poured kerosene on himself, and on Sunday, A1 burnt his mother by pouring kerosene on her. PW.3 further stated that the houses of PW5, PW.6, and PW.7 are situated beside the house of A.1. PW.3 denied a suggestion that due to quarrel between A1 and his deceased mother with regard to the purchase of cycle for his brother- PW.4, his deceased mother poured kerosene on her and set herself ablaze and at that time he was not present at his house. 11. PW.4 who is another son of A1 and the deceased, deposed that the deceased mother died about eight months back and on the date of the incident, his deceased mother returned to the house after attending coolie work and his father-A1 beat his mother for money to consume country made liquor, upon which his mother gave A1 Rs.10/- and A1 consumed country made liquor and returned to the house, beat him and PW.3, sent both of them out of the house and then poured kerosene on his mother and set her ablaze. After setting her ablaze, his father-A1 came out of the house and latched the door from outside, then he and PW.3 raised hue and cry, upon which PW.7, PW.6 and PW.5 came to their house, pushed aside his father-A1, opened the door, went inside the house, brought his mother outside and covered her body with a bed sheet. Then, he and PW.3, out of fear, went to his grand parents’ house and informed them about the incident, upon which, PW.1 and his maternal uncle shifted his mother to the hospital. PW.4 further stated that his mother died 15 days after her admission in the hospital. PW.4 in his cross examination stated that he used to watch Television once in blue moon that too on Sunday in the morning at the house of his neighbour Peekla. PW.4 denied a suggestion that he omitted to state before the Police that his father-A1 demanded money from his mother for consuming liquor and his deceased mother gave Rs.10/- to him. PW.4 denied a suggestion that his mother (deceased), disgusted with his father-A1, committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her and setting herself ablaze, by which time he and PW.3 were not at the house, but watching Television at the house of Peekla. PW.4 denied a suggestion that they returned from the house of Peekla after watching Television, by that time, his mother was already burnt and on seeing her, they went to PWs 1 and 2 and informed them about the incident. PW.4 denied a suggestion that A1 is not responsible for the death of his deceased mother. 12. The evidence of PW.1 is that A1 did not use to attend any work and he was addicted to alcohol and if his deceased daughter did not give any money to him, as demanded by him, he used to beat his deceased daughter. On the date of incident, his grand sons, PWs 3 and 4 came to him and informed him that A1 poured kerosene on his deceased daughter and set her ablaze. He rushed to his daughter’s house and observed that PW.5, PW.6 and PW.7 placed his daughter in front of the house. PW.1 shifted his daughter to Area Hospital, Mahebubabad and admitted her and on the next day at 4.00 p.m. he gave report to the Police about the act of A1 pouring kerosene on his daughter and setting her ablaze. PW.1 stated that his daughter survived for 15 days and later died and the police examined him and recorded his statement. At this stage, PW.1 turned hostile and he was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW.1 in his cross examination admitted that in his statement before the Police, he stated that A1 was addicted to alcohol and he used to beat the deceased and her children and demand money every day from the deceased. PW.1 also admitted that his grand sons PWs3 and 4 came to him and informed him that while the deceased was covering hens under a basket, A1 came in an intoxicated state, sent out his children, and with an intention to kill the deceased, poured kerosene on her, set her ablaze, came out of the house and latched the door from outside. PW.1, in his cross examination, denied a suggestion that his daughter herself poured kerosene on her and set herself ablaze with an intention to commit suicide. 13. PW.2, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that when her deceased daughter was covering the hens under a basket, A1 poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. PWs 3 and 4 came to their house and informed about the same and her husband rushed to deceased daughter’s house first, and then she went there. PW.2 stated that A1 used to drink country made liquor and beat her deceased daughter. A1 was not doing any work. PW.2 stated that her daughter used to attend cooli work, earn money and give some amount out of her earnings to A.1 and A.1, who used to drink country made liquor with the said money and beat her daughter. At this stage, PW.2 turned hostile and was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW.2 admitted in her cross examination that in her statement before the police, she stated that her grand sons came and informed her that while the deceased was covering hens, under a basket, A 1 came in an intoxicated state and with an intention to kill deceased, poured kerosene on her, set her ablaze, came out of the house and latched the door from outside. PW.2 in her cross examination denied a suggestion that the deceased daughter used to beat A1, and she poured kerosene on her and set herself ablaze. 14. PW.5, who was turned hostile, stated in her cross examination that the houses of herself, PW.6 and PW.7 are situated beside the house of the deceased. She admitted that she stated before the police in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the deceased when covering hens under a basket, A1 closed the door, poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze with an intention to kill her and A1 also latched the door from outside. When PWs 3 and 4 raised hue and cry, herself, PW.7 and PW.6 went there, pushed A1 aside and brought Banoth Maji(deceased) outside, who was in flames and extinguished the flames by covering her with a bed sheet. Immediately, PWs 3 and 4 informed PWs 1 and 2 about the incident upon which they came and shifted the deceased to Area Hospital, Muhabubabad. 15. PW.6 turned hostile and was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. She stated in her cross examination that she removed the latch of the door, went inside the house and brought the deceased outside, and when they opened the door of the house of the deceased, she was just beside the door in her house. PWs 3 and 4 were saying to PWs 1 and 2 and others, who gathered there, that A1 poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. In the cross examination, PW.6 stated that PW.4 was at his house when the deceased was set ablaze. 16. PW.7, who turned hostile, stated in his chief examination that he poured water on the deceased. At that time, PWs 5 and 6 came and covered the body of the deceased with bed sheet. 17. PW.8 denied a suggestion that PWs 3 and 4 did not come to him nor did they inform about the incident, and the deceased herself committed suicide and A1 was not responsible for the death of the deceased. 18. PWs.10 and 11-Thanda elders and PWs.9 and 13-inquest panchas are turned hostile. PW.12 in his cross examination answered to a question that police seized M.Os 1 to 3 before him and then obtained his signature on Ex.P.8-C.D.F. PW.14, in his chief examination, stated that A.1 confessed before him to the Police that he poured kerosene on his wife (deceased) and set her ablaze, as a result, she died. PW.14 is a signatory to Ex.P.10-confessional panchanama of A1. PW.15-Mandal Revenue Officer, Mahabubabad deposed that he went to record the dying declaration of the injured (deceased) at Area Hospital, Mahabubabad and tried to talk to the injured (deceased), but she was unable to talk anything. The duty doctor recorded the condition of the injured (deceased) in her case sheet. PW.16, who conducted the Postmortem, deposed in her evidence, that she conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Banoth Maji on 19.02.2006 between 3.30 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. on the requisition given by the C.I. of Police and during the autopsy, she found the following external injuries. (i) Burns over the face extending from below the eyes to neck, chest, trunk to legs till the knee joints including front of hands. (ii) Burns over the back of the body. PWs 17 and 18 are the Police officials, who investigated the case. 19. It is to be seen that PWs 3 and 4, who are the sons of the deceased and A1, are the natural witnesses and their evidence is consistent in all material particulars about A1’s idleness and the deceased was subjected to harassment by him to extract money from her for consumption of country made liquor and also about the cruel and most heinous act of A1 pouring kerosene on the deceased after beating and sending out PWs 3 and 4 from the house and setting the deceased ablaze and his coming out and locking the door from the outside. It is pertinent to note that the testimony of PWs 3 and 4 is corroborated in all the material particulars of the incident with the evidence of PWs 1,2, 5 and 6. Further, PWs 5 to 7- neighbours of A1 and eye witnesses to the incident, though were turned hostile, deposed in their cross examination in favour of the prosecution. PWs 12 and 14 also corroborated the case of the prosecution. Further, the medical evidence of PW.16 fortifies the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 that the deceased died due to burn injuries. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Speticemia is a different cause and that the cause of the death was not due to the burn injuries, cannot be sustained. So far as delay in giving Ex.P.1- report to Police is concerned, the evidence of PW.3 is that as nobody was present in the hospital to attend his mother, his grand parents had to be with his mother (deceased), and on the next day, his grand father gave Ex.P.1 report to the Police. Therefore, we do not find any delay in giving report to the Police. 20. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 reported in Ogiboyina Kotaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2] and Ganga Dass alias Godha v. State of Haryana,[3] are not at all relevant to the case on hand. 21. Having regard to the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, the trial court has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing A1 of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. 22. Hence, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH​ ___________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA 13-12-2010 L.R. copy to be marked B/o. Stp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.719 of 2007 Date: 13 -12-2010 [1] 2007(1) ALT (Crl.) 260 (DB) (A.P.) [2] 1997 (1) ALD (Crl.) 620 (A.P) [3] 1994 Crl.L.J. 237 (SC)