*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND *THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO +Crl.A.No.141 of 2008 % Date: 17.11.2011 Between: # Mohammed Aleem …Appellant And $ The State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor …Respondent ! Counsel for the appellant : Smt.Shanti Neelam ^ Counsel for respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR < GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.141 OF 2008 Date:17-11-2011 Between: Mohammed Aleem …Appellant And The State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.141 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao) This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 21.09.2007 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in S.C.No.119 of 2007 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 2. We have heard Mrs. Shanthi Neelam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is like this: The deceased-Hameeda is the wife of the appellant-Mohammed Aleem and their marriage was performed 10 years prior to the incident. The appellant who was habituated to drinking used to pick up quarrels with the deceased oftenly and he was demanding money from her to consume liquor. On the date of the incident, i.e. on 03.09.2006 at 10 p.m. the appellant came to the house in a drunken state, demanded the deceased money for consuming liquor. On refusal by the deceased, the appellant picked up quarrel with her, beat her, poured kerosene over her body and lit a match stick and set her on fire. The deceased who was caught in flames raised cries. On hearing the cries, PWs.2, 3 and some other neighbours came to the house of the appellant, found the deceased in flames, extinguished the flames and shifted her to Area Hospital, Bhongir. They also noticed the appellant who was trying to put off the flames. After providing initial treatment in Area Hospital, Bhongir, the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. On receiving information about the incident, PW-1, the father of the deceased rushed to Gandhi Hospital and enquired the deceased as to what had happened, then she told him that her husband after picking up quarrel with her, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Thereafter, PW-1 went to Police Station, Bhongir Town and lodged a report with the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. On receipt of the said report, PW-9 registered the case in Crime No.147 of 2006 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. PW-11, the Inspector of Police conducted investigation and laid the charge sheet against the appellant. 4. The appellant was tried by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda for the charge under Section 302 IPC. The plea of the accused was one of the total denial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant, examined PWs.1 to 12, marked Exs.P- 1 to P-10 and M.Os.1 to 3. The learned Sessions Judge upon considering the entire evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the charge under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as mentioned above. 5. Now the point for determination before us is whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. The appellant, according to the prosecution, after setting the deceased on fire, tried to extinguish the flames and in that process, he received injuries. The fact of receiving injuries by the appellant has been testified by PW-7, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Bhongir. PW-7 stated in his evidence that he examined the appellant and noticed 8% burns on both hands and the burn injuries are said to be simple in nature. The defence theory was that while cooking food, the deceased accidentally caught fire and as a consequence she received burn injuries. PWs.2 and 3 neighbours have categorically stated in their depositions that there used to be quarrels between the appellant and the deceased and they pacified them. According to both the witnesses prior to the incident there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and they pacified the quarrel, subsequently at about 10 p.m. they heard the cries of the deceased, rushed to the house of the appellant, found her burning in flames, they extinguished the flames and along with the neighbours they shifted the deceased to Area Hospital from there. PW-4 is another crucial witness in this case. She is no other than the daughter of the appellant and the deceased. She was aged 8 years on the date of the incident. By conducting preliminary examination, the learned Sessions Judge found her to be a competent witness. She had categorically deposed before the trial Court that there used to be quarrels between the appellant and the deceased, that on the date of the incident, after taking dinner, she went to bed, subsequently she woke up and found the appellant beating her mother and also she saw her mother with burns. 7. This apart, PW-1, father of the deceased, PW-3, an independent witness and the neighbours stated in their depositions before the trial Court that after the deceased was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries, they questioned her as to what happened and she told them that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire as she failed to give money to the appellant for consuming liquor. What all stated by the deceased to PWs.2 and 3 orally are the statements relating to cause of her death and are admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. PW-12 is the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at the relevant time. Her evidence discloses that on 05.09.2006 at about 5.50 p.m. she received a requisition from Station House Officer, Bhongir Town to record dying declaration of Hameeda (the deceased), thereafter she rushed to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, the doctor who was there on duty, examined the deceased and gave opinion that the deceased was conscious, coherent and was in a fit state of mind to give statement. The learned Magistrate also put some preliminary questions to find out the mental condition of the deceased and satisfied about her fitness of mind to give statement. According to PW- 12 the deceased stated that on the date of the incident at about 9.30 p.m. her husband came to their house in a drunken state, picked up a quarrel, beat her and told her to die and thereafter poured kerosene on her and set her on fire and that subsequently, she sustained burn injuries and the neighbours brought her to the hospital. The declarant also specifically stated that her husband was responsible for the said incident. The dying declaration given by the deceased to PW-12, the magistrate is marked as Ex.P-10. 9. In this case, initially the police registered a case under Section 307 IPC against the appellant and subsequently when the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad on 07.09.2006, the section of law was altered to one under Section 302 IPC. The evidence forthcoming in this case in proof of the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC against the appellant is of highly reliable character, convincing and cogent. The presence of the appellant at the time of the incident is admitted. 10. In the light of the evidence which has been stated hereinabove, the explanation offered by the appellant that his wife received burn injuries while cooking food is found to be unacceptable. The dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P-10 recorded by PW-12, the magistrate is fully corroborated on all material particulars by the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4. Absolutely, there is no enmity between the appellant and PWs.2 and 3. Similarly PW-4 who is the daughter of deceased cannot be expected to give false evidence implicating her father. The trial Court on a proper analysis and assessment of the evidence rightly found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court do not call for any interference in this appeal and they are affirmed. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant and dismiss the appeal. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J _ _____________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date:17-11-2011 Note : L.R copy to be marked. B/O CCM HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.141 OF 2008 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao) Date:17-11-2011