THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.217 of 2008 JUDGMENET: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The appellant/accused was tried and convicted for an oﬀence under Section 302 IPC by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, in Sessions Case No.279 of 2006 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and he ﬁled the present appeal challenging the conviction and sentence recorded against him. 2. The case of the prosecution case, in nutshell, is thus: The marriage of the accused viz., Ummadisetty Ramaiah with the deceased was performed about 20 years back after the accused discarded his ﬁrst wife. After they lived happily for sometime and blessed with four sons, for the last one year from the date of oﬀence, he became lazy and not doing any work but addicted to alcohol and bad vices. The deceased was doing coolly work by running spinning wheel to look-after her family and the accused used to collect money from the deceased by hook or crook by consuming the alcohol. While so, on 05-06-2006, in the early hours of 5.30 hours, the accused demanded the deceased to give money for consuming alcohol, for which, the deceased refused and some altercation took place between both of them. As the deceased did not respond, the accused grew wild and picked up kerosene tin available in the house and poured kerosene on the deceased and set ﬁre by uttering ‘chavu lanja’. Within no time the ﬂames fose up all over the body of the deceased. She raised cries. On hearing the cries, the neighbour P.W.2 and her sons rushed to her. P.W.1, her son, poured water and engulfed the flames and put off the fire. Later the deceased was shifted to the hospital. On receipt of intimation under Ex.P-4 from the Government Hospital, Proddatur, P.W.6, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Proddatur I town police station, visited the hospital and recorded Ex.P-5, statement between 8 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. in the presence of duty Doctor, under which he registered crime in Ex.P-6, F.I.R. Later he gave a requisition, Ex.P-11 to P.W.8, I Additional Judicial Magistrate, Proddatur, for recording a dying declaration. On receiving the requisition under Ex.P-11, P.W.8 visited the Area Hospital and recorded Ex.P-15, statement of the deceased at 4.15 p.m. and 5.15 p.m. on 05- 06-2006. When the deceased in hospital, P.W.6 visited the scene of oﬀence and prepared the rough sketch, Ex.P-7. He seized the kerosene tin, M.O.1 and recorded the statement of P.Ws.2, 3 and others. P.W.7, Inspector of Police, who took over the investigation, visited the scene of oﬀence, arrested the accused on 11-06-2006 and on receipt of death intimation, Ex.P-9, from the hospital on 06-07-2006, he altered the section of law and issued altered F.I.R. under Ex.P-10, and submitted the same to the Court. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and others, held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators and sent the dead body for postmortem examination, and after receipt of the relevant postmortem report and other certiﬁcates, he filed the charge sheet. 3. On committal, when the charge under Section 302 IPC was framed, the same was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-12 and M.O.1 were marked. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D-1 was marked. 5. P.W.1, who is the eldest son of the deceased and the accused, stated that the incident occurred at about 5.30 a.m. His mother was working in sericulture. He and his brother were attending other works as coolies. The accused who is his father used to sit as idle and addicted to drinks and wasting money and at 5.30 a.m. on the date of incident, his father poured kerosene on his mother and set ﬁre uttering ‘chavu, chavu’. He poured water on his mother and put oﬀ the ﬁre. Himself and L.W.2 took the deceased to the Government Hospital where she gave statement to the police and after one month, she died. 6. P.W.2 who is a neighbour, was declared hostile, but stated that she saw P.W.1 pouring water on the deceased who sustained burn injuries. P.W.3, inquest panchayatdar, was also declared hostile. P.W.4, doctor, certiﬁed that the patient was conscious and ﬁt to give statement under Ex.P-12, dying declaration, recorded by P.W.8. P.W.5, doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination to the deceased, stated that he also mentioned the date of admission and date of death in the postmortem certiﬁcate, Ex.P-3. He opined that the death was due to scepticaemic shock due to severe burns. P.W.8, who recorded the dying declaration, stated that on receipt of requisition under Ex.P-11, she went to the Area Hospital, Proddatur and recorded the statement, Ex.P-12 of the victim between 4.50 p.m. and 5.15 p.m. 7. The above evidence of the prosecution was found trust worthy and accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and accordingly convicted the accused. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused contends that when P.W.2, who is a neighbour, was declared hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and when the accused also accompanied to the deceased in the hospital as stated by the deceased in the dying declaration, there is no intention to the accused to cause the death of the deceased and that he committed oﬀence as to the dispute with regard to the property as stated by P.W.1 in his cross-examination. 9. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and P.W.8 and the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, opined that the deceased died due to scepticaemic shock due to severe burns and that as seen from the statement of the deceased and the dying declarations, Exs.P-5 and P-12, recorded by P.W.6 and P.W.8, respectively, it is clear that both are consisting with regard to the act of the accused pouring kerosene and setting ﬁre to the deceased. P.W.1, who immediately poured water on the deceased, was present in the meantime along with his brother, L.W.2 and P.W.2, and put off the fire and took up the deceased to the hospital. 10. Further, P.W.8 visited the hospital and recorded detailed statement from the deceased by putting questions about the previous quarrels between the deceased and her husband which led to the pouring of kerosene and with regard to the bad habits and conduct of the accused and the demand made by the accused for money and also suspecting her fidelity and frequent quarrels between herself and the deceased, which clearly establishes the motive of the accused caused to the death of the deceased and that the accused, knowing fully, caused the bodily injury. Therefore, it is suﬃcient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature as stated by the doctor, who issued the postmortem certificate. 11. In view of the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly held that the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore no leniency can be given to the appellant-accused. Hence, we conﬁrm the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _________________________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J _______________________________ Dated: 29-11-2011 SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Kvr