HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.373 OF 2007 Dated:26-07-2010 BETWEEN: Shaik Allabakash …Appellant AND State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad, Through S.H.O., Hindupur I Town P.S., Anantapur District. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.373 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) Sole accused in S.C.No.468 of 2002 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, filed the present appeal challenging his convictions for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 450 I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 450 I.P.C., recorded in the judgment dated 2.3.2007. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal may be stated as follows: The accused was doing the work in silk reeling. The accused employed 2 or 3 persons for the work of silk reeling. Smt.Shaik Beebi Jan (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) was working under the accused attending to silk yarn twisting in his house, which is located opposite to the house of deceased. Some months prior to the date of incident, the accused developed illicit intimacy with the deceased. On coming to know about the same, the wife of the accused admonished the deceased and warned her not to come to her house for the above said work. Thereafter, the deceased stopped going to the house of the accused. But still the accused demanded the deceased to continue the illicit intimacy and attend the work in his house, for which, the deceased refused. On 23.2.2002 at about 10.45 p.m., the accused criminally trespassed into the house of the deceased situated at Shantinagar, Hindupur town and asked her to continue illicit intimacy with him, and when she refused, he poured kerosene on her and set fire to her, as a result, she sustained severe burn injuries all over her body and raised hue and cries. Thereafter P.W.1 poured water so as to extinguish the fire. In the process, P.W.1 also received burn injuries on his face and hands. In the incident, the accused also received burn injuries as the deceased caught hold of his hands after setting fire to her. The deceased was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Hindupur. P.W.7 is the doctor who admitted the deceased into the hospital. He sent intimation to the police as well as the Magistrate. P.W.10-Circle Inspector of Police visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased, basing on which he registered a case. Later, P.W.9-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur upon receipt of intimation from the hospital went there and recorded the statement of the deceased. The deceased succumbed to burn injuries on the next day i.e. on 24.2.2002 at about 6.20 p.m. P.W.10 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators, observed the scene of offence, prepared observation report and also drew rough sketch. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. P.W.8-the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body opined that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries. After receipt of post-mortem report and after completion of investigation, P.W.10 laid the charge sheet. 3. The charges levelled against the appellant-accused are as under: “Charge No.1: That you on or about the 23rd day of February, 2002 at about 10.45 P.M. committed house-trespass, by entering into the house of Shaik Beebijan, W/o.Shaikshavali, aged 35 years, Santhinagar, Hindupur Town, used as a human dwelling, in order to commit murder, in case she refused to continue illegal intimacy with you, which was developed between you and the said deceased and thus you thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.450 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Charge No.2: That you on the same date, time and place and in the course of same transaction as mentioned in charge No.1, did commit murder of deceased Shaik Beebijan, W/o.Shaikshavali, aged 35 years, Santhinagar, Hindupur Town, by intentionally or knowingly, causing her death, to wit, poured kerosene on her forcibly and set her on fire, who succumbed to burns on 24.2.2002 at 6.20 PM at Govt. Hospital, Hindupur, while undergoing treatment and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.302 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Charge No.3: That you on or about the same day, time and place and in the course of same transaction mentioned in charges 1 and 2 above, caused grievous hurt to Shaikshavali @ Shashavali, aged 50 years, husband of the deceased, to wit, sustained burns when tried to put off flames caused by your acts, on his wife, and thus you thereby committed an offence u/s 326 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.” 4. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.21. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. When the accused was called upon to adduce evidence, he did not let in any evidence. 7. The Trial Court in the first instance vide judgment dated 17.3.2004 came to the conclusion that the three dying declarations-Exs.P.9, P.15 and P.18 were true, trustworthy and reliable and accordingly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 450 I.P.C., however, acquitted him of the charge under Section 326 I.P.C. Then the accused preferred an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.788 of 2004. This Court by judgment, dated 31.8.2006 remanded the matter to the trial Court setting aside the convictions and sentences, on the ground that the dying declarations have not been put to the accused in the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and directing the trial Court to examine the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the contents of the dying declarations. Thereafter, after examining the accused, the impugned judgment was passed. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. The point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 450 I.P.C. against the accused? 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the three dying declarations-Exs.P.9, P.15 and P.18 are not consistent with each other, that there are so many inconsistencies in these dying declarations, that when the deceased sustained 95% burn injuries including the burns on the lips and nose, it may not be possible for the deceased to give a statement as to the cause of her death, that in view of the fact that these dying declarations are not wholly reliable, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the dying declarations so as to base a conviction, that there is no other evidence on record to corroborate the dying declarations in view of the fact that all the close relatives of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution, that it is highly improbable for the accused to go to the house of the deceased when her children and husband were very much present in the house, that on coming to know about the incident accused went there and tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water, and in that process, he also sustained burn injuries and therefore, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that there is no other reason for the deceased to foist a false case of this nature against the accused, that it is not a case of committing suicide by the deceased by pouring kerosene on her body and setting fire to herself, that the dying declarations were recorded immediately within 2 to 3 hours after the incident, that it is not a case of deceased implicating the accused falsely due to some grudge or enmity, that all the dying declarations are consistent as to how the accused poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and set fire to her and that the inconsistencies with regard to the minor aspects would not in any manner affect the main substratum of the prosecution case and those inconsistencies cannot be taken as a ground to acquit the accused, that the Magistrate who recorded the statement has categorically stated that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and she was conscious and coherent at the time of giving the statement and that the trial Court upon an elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly found the accused guilty and there are no grounds to interfere with the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court. 11. There is no dispute with regard to the taking place of incident in the house of the deceased. P.W.6, who is one of the mediators present at the time of P.W.10 observing the scene of occurrence, found the plastic can, broken bangle pieces and half torn clothes of the deceased at the house. Ex.P.7 is the observation report. Even the accused did not deny or dispute about the taking place of incident in the house of the deceased. 12. P.W.10 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.7 and others under Ex.P.6-inquest panchanama. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination by doctor-P.W.8. He found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased: “External injuries: Burns seen all over the body, except soles of the feet. Singering of scalp hair seen. The skin was peeling of at different places over the body. Burns are superficial to deep in nature and no identification marks could be found because of extensive burns. Internal examination:- Examination of neck-Revealed hyoid is intact. Chest examination: Ribs are intact, heart all chambers are empty. Lungs- congested. Examination of abdomen- Stomach empty. Spleen, liver, intest coils and kidneys are intact and congested. Uterus non-gravid in nature. Bladder empty. Examination of skull reveals- no fracture of skull bones. Brain and mininges are intact and congested and there is no internal bleeding in the skull.” He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to extensive burns. He issued Ex.P.14 post-mortem certificate. Practically, the evidence of P.W.8 and the recitals in Ex.P.14 remained unchallenged. The cause of death as spoken to by P.W.8 and as recited in Ex.P.14 would clearly go to show that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries. 13. Now, the question is who has caused the burn injuries to the deceased. There cannot be any dispute that a statement, verbal or written, given by a person as to cause of his death or any of the circumstances of the transaction leading to his death, is admissible in evidence under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 when the cause of the death of such person comes into question. The law is well settled that if the dying declaration is found to be true and trustworthy and not an outcome of tutoring or prompting by any of the relatives or any other interested person, then it can be acted upon and conviction can be maintained even without corroboration. P.Ws.1 to 5 who are closely related to the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution. They have given a complete go by to their earlier version. Therefore, the prosecution rightly sought permission from the court to declare them hostile and to cross-examine them. Even after cross-examination, nothing has been elicited in their evidence to connect the accused with the offences with which he was charged. 14. The entire case rests upon the three dying declarations namely, Ex.P.9, which is recorded by P.W.10, the investigating officer; Ex.P.15 recorded by P.W.9, the Judicial First Class Magistrate; and Ex.P.18, the statement of deceased recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation by P.W.10. The relevant portion in Ex.P.9 reads thus: “…………..On 23.2.2002 at about 10.45 P.M., the said Allabakash came to my house and asked me to serve him food, for which I did not agree and he warned to kill me and my husband and children, if I did not serve him food and while saying so, asked me to make bed for them, outside the house, for which also I did not agree. Then, Allabakash, took kerosene oil from the kerosene can available in our house and poured on my person, lit a match-stick and set fire to me, due to which my clothes caught fire. Due to those flames, I cried loud, then Allabakash poured water over me, put off flames. Then I caught hold of him. He also sustained burn injuries. As Allabakash poured kerosene oil on my person and set fire to me, I have sustained burn injuries all over my body. My husband also sustained burn injuries to his hands, when he tried to put off the flames. As I have been suffering with burn injuries, my husband Shaikshavali and my brother Rahamatulla, shifted me in an Auto to the Govt. Hospital, Hindupur and admitted me there for treatment and the Doctor gave treatment to the burn injuries……..” A perusal of above statement would go to show that the accused poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and set fire to her, but later the accused poured water to put off the flames. Then the deceased caught hold of the accused, as a result of which, he also sustained burn injuries. P.W.7-Doctor made an endorsement in Ex.P.9 to the effect that the patient was conscious while recording the statement. 15. Similarly, upon receipt of requisition, P.W.9-Magistrate went to the hospital at about 1.15 a.m. on 24.2.2002 and recorded the statement as in Ex.P.15. The relevant portion in the said statement reads as follows: “………On 23.2.202 at about 10.00 P.M. Allabakash came to our house and asked me to serve him food and accordingly I served him food, but, he did not eat and tried to enjoy me, but I did not agree. He took kerosene oil available in our house, poured the same on my person, lit match-stick and set fire to me. Children were sleeping. My husband had been away from house.” The same doctor-P.W.7 made an endorsement on the statement recorded by the Magistrate-P.W.9 to the effect that the patient was in mentally fit condition and fully in conscious state of mind. Similarly, P.W.9 put some preliminary questions to the deceased to know her state of mind. After satisfying himself that the deceased was in fit state of mind, he proceeded to record the statement. 16. The relevant portion in Ex.P.18 statement recorded by P.W.10 reads as follows: “…………On 23.2.2002 at about 10.45 P.M. while myself and my husband were sleeping in our house, the said Allabakash trespassed to my house and asked me to serve him food, but, I did not serve him food. Again, the said Allabakash asked me to make bed outside the house and if I did not heed to him, he threatened to kill me, my children and husband. As I did not obey his demands, Allabakash, with an intention to kill me, he took kerosene oil from a kerosene can available in our house, poured kerosene oil over my person. When my husband tried to come to my rescue, Allabakash pushed us aside, then lit a matchstick and set fire to me. My clothes caught fire and entire body received burn injuries and when I tightly caught hold of the said Allabakash while I was in flames, the said Allabakash also sustained burns over his hands and face. Then he freemed from my clothes and out of fear, poured water over me. Again, my husband also tried to put off flames, consequently, he also sustained burns to his hands and face. Then I cried loudly, unable to bear out pain due to burns, the neighbours, Dastagiri Sab and some others came to our house……………..” Therefore, from the above dying declarations recorded by P.W.10- Investigating Officer and P.W.9-Judicial First Class Magistrate it is clear that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the statements. No-doubt, the deceased sustained 95% of burn injuries including the burns on the lips and nose, but that does not mean she was not capable of speaking or stating anything as to the cause of her death or any one of the circumstances resulting in her death. The duty doctor-P.W.7 is the best person to speak about the conscious and coherent state of mind of the deceased at the time of giving the statements. He is the best person to speak whether the deceased, who sustained burn injuries to the lips, could be in a position to speak or not. He categorically stated that the deceased was conscious, coherent and was able to give her statement. Except giving a suggestion to him that the patient was not conscious, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P.W.7 and the two endorsements made on Exs.P.9 and P.15. When the mental condition of the deceased is fit to give a statement, it cannot be doubted. Unless the deceased was having a strong ill-will or dislike or grudge against the accused, she would not have implicated the accused as the person who poured kerosene and set fire to her. It is not the case of the accused that the deceased was tutored or prompted by her husband or by other relatives so as to implicate the accused falsely. It is not the case of deceased committing suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and setting fire to her because there is no other evidence to indicate that the deceased committed suicide. Similarly, it is not a case where the husband of the deceased poured kerosene and set fire to her. In such a case, there is no other reason for the deceased to speak falsely against the accused so as to implicate him in a case of this nature. 17. Furthermore, presence of the accused at the time of the incident is also not in dispute. Admittedly, the accused also sustained burn injuries. P.W.7-the doctor who examined the accused, found the following injuries on the accused: “Superficial to deep fresh burns over front of chest and abdomen, both upper limbs including hands and neck. Marks of ink present over the burns. Erythema present at margins of burns, smell of kerosene present, soot present here and there over face. Signing of scalp hair and eye brows present.” The doctor issued Ex.P.11 wound certificate. He opined that the said injuries can be caused when a person tries to extinguish fire or save a burning patient. That evidence remained unchallenged. Therefore, the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence at the relevant point of time of the incident is established beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. Admittedly, house of the accused is located quite opposite to the house of the deceased. For some time, the deceased worked in the house of the accused in silk reeling section. While she was working in the house of the accused, wife of the accused suspected that there was an illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased and therefore, she directed the deceased not to come for work in their house about six months prior to the incident. On the date of incident i.e. on 23.2.2002 at about 10.45 p.m., the accused went to the house of the deceased, woke her up and asked her to serve food and he also asked her to make the bed ready outside the house, for which, she did not agree. Then, immediately, the accused took the kerosene can available in the house of the deceased, poured kerosene on her person and set fire to her. Preceding the incident, verbal altercation took place between the accused and the deceased. 19. No-doubt, there are some inconsistencies in the dying declarations with regard to other aspects i.e. in one dying declaration she stated that her husband was not present at the time of incident, whereas in another dying declaration she stated that herself and her husband were sleeping at the time of incident. Similarly, in one dying declaration, she stated that on the date of incident, the accused came to her house and forced to have sexual intercourse. Whereas, in another dying declaration, she stated that she was having illicit contact with the accused. These inconsistencies which are trivial in nature would not in any manner affect the main fabric of the prosecution case. These inconsistencies are bound to occur because the deceased sustained 95% burn injuries. The act of accused pouring kerosene on the body of the deceased and setting fire to her is consistent in all the three dying declarations. 20. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is highly impossible to place reliance on the dying declarations recorded because the accused ought not to have gone to the house of the deceased when her husband and children were sleeping so as to fulfill his lust with the deceased. As seen from the dying declaration under Ex.P.9, it is clear that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with the accused. As a matter of fact, for that reason, her services were discontinued in the house of the accused by the wife of the accused. Because of that intimacy, it is quite probable for the accused to go to the house of the deceased, and that there is every reason for accused to request her to arrange a bed outside the house so that it would not be known to her husband as well as the other inmates of the house. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is not improbable for the accused to go to the house of the deceased so as to have sexual intercourse with the deceased. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed strong reliance upon the decision reported in State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar[1], wherein the Apex Court at para 10 held as under: “10. While appreciating the credibility of the evidence produced before the Court, the Court must view evidence as a whole and come to a conclusion as to its genuineness and truthfulness. The mere fact that two different versions are given but one name is common in both of them cannot be a ground for convicting the named person. The Court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful. If there are two dying declarations giving two different versions, a serious doubt is created about the truthfulness of the dying declaration. It may be that if there was any other reliable evidence on record, this Court could have considered such corroborative evidence to test the truthfulness of the dying declarations. The two dying declarations, however, in the instant case stand by themselves and there is no other reliable evidence on record by reference to which their truthfulness can be tested. It is well settled that one piece of unreliable evidence cannot be used to corroborate another piece of unreliable evidence……….” There is no dispute about the law laid down by the Supreme Court. If there is any ground to doubt the truthful version of the dying declarations, wherein two different versions have been given each one is inconsistent with each other, then certainly it requires corroboration. Once the dying declaration is found to be truthful version of the deceased and not