Ongole Ravikanth vs State Of A.P

2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that the deceased was married to the appellant in the year 1994 and led marital life for about 1 = years and gave birth to a daughter in 1995. It is alleged that even while living with his wife the accused developed illegal intimacy with other women and was found flirting with them and some times he used to bring those women to the matrimonial home. Naturally, the deceased raised serious objections as to the conduct of the appellant indulging in such immoral and objectionable activities. The appellant instead of mending his ways frequently used to taunt her saying that "you can also have a paramour if you want". On 11.1.1997 at about 9.00 p.m. when both the deceased and the appellant were in the bedroom, the accused switched on the tape-recorder; on that the deceased asked him to put off the same but the appellant did not stop it and on the contrary he slapped the deceased which led to a quarrel between them. The appellant mockingly suggested to the deceased to go away with someone of her choice and leave him alone. Having been hurt by the provocative words and the vulgar behaviour of the appellant she rushed into the kitchen and brought kerosene and a matchbox. She poured the kerosene on herself. The appellant obviously having snatched the match box from her lit the match stick and threw the same on the deceased resulting in severe burns to her vital organs of the body. Immediately, the deceased came out of the bedroom with flames crying loudly. On hearing the cries and on seeing her in flames, the father of the appellant and other neighbours poured water on her body and covered her with a bed sheet. In the meantime, the appellant arranged an auto and took her to her parents' house in the same locality and from there she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur by her brother (PW-

3. On requisition from the Hospital authorities, the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur recorded her dying declaration in the presence of the Medical Officer. Based on the statement (Ex.P-4) the Police Station Pattabhipuram, Guntur issued First Information Report (Ex. P-16) and registered the same as Crime No. 2 of 1997 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 307 IPC against the appellant. While undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on 18.1.1997 at 4.45 p.m. in the Government Hospital, Guntur. Upon receiving information the police altered the provisions of law into Sections 498A and 302 IPC and accordingly issued the altered FIR. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 IPC.

4. The prosecution in order to establish its case against the appellant altogether examined 15 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-15) and 21 documents were got Exhibited (Ex. P-1 to P-

6. The appellant as well as the State preferred appeals against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court upon re-appreciation of the evidence and more particularly relying upon the evidence of PWs -1, 3 and 4 coupled with the dying declaration (Ex. P-4) held that there were serious disputes between the appellant and his wife with regard to the wayward habits of the appellant resulting in frequent quarrels between them which led to the incident on the fateful day. The High Court also found the appellant himself put her on fire which resulted in causing 60% burns all over the body and more particularly on vital parts resulting in death of the deceased. The High Court found the incident took place on the "spur of the moment" due to quarrel that had developed in the bed room due to which the deceased poured kerosene on herself, the accused lighted the match stick which ultimately resulted in her death. In the result, the High Court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Hence, these appeals by the accused against his conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC. The State did not prefer any appeal though it filed the charge sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 302 IPC.

8. The short question which arises for our consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court committed any error in convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC? The entire prosecution story rests upon the dying declaration (Ex. P-4) recorded by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at about 11.30 p.m. on 11.1.1997. Be it noted that the incident had taken place on 11.1.1997 at about 10.00 p.m. in the house of the appellant. PW-4 who is none other than the father of the appellant who did not support the prosecution case on account of which he was declared hostile stated in his evidence that the incident had taken place on 11.1.1997 at about 10 or 10.30 p.m. in his house in the bedroom of the appellant and the deceased. The deceased rushed out of the bedroom crying loudly. He extinguished the fire by pouring water on the body of the deceased and covered her with a bed sheet. The appellant took the deceased in an auto to her parents house and thereafter got her admitted in the hospital. Dr. CH. Raghukula Kiran (PW-13) stated in his evidence that on 11.1.1997 at about 11.00 p.m. the deceased was brought to the casualty ward with burn injuries by the appellant. He gave first aid to the injured and thereafter sent Ex. P-3 requisition to the Judicial First Class Magistrate (PW-2). According to him PW-2 came to the casualty ward of the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. He was present at the time of recording of the statement and found that the deceased was conscious and coherent at the time of recording her statement by PW-2. He made an endorsement on the statement recorded by PW-2 to the effect that the patient was conscious and coherent and she was in a fit condition to give the statement. Ex. P-14 is the endorsement made on Ex. P-4.

(Emphasis is of ours)

15. In the light of the law laid down by this Court we have critically examined dying declaration (Ex. P-4) made by the deceased and the surrounding circumstances. There is no doubt whatsoever the statement made by the deceased was on her own volition. It was voluntarily made without any coercion or tutoring of anyone. The statement is natural and coherently made by the deceased in a fit state of mind. There is nothing on record to doubt the evidence of PW- 2 who recorded the dying declaration and evidence of duty doctor (PW-13) who certified that the deceased was in fit state of mind to make her statement. Except PW-2 and PW-13 no other individual was present when she made the statement. We do not find any reason whatsoever not to accept the dying declaration. The question is whether the contents do not disclose any offending act by the appellant? The deceased in clear and categorical terms stated that she poured kerosene on herself and it was the appellant who lit the match stick resulting in fire and causing 60% burns which ultimately led to her death. The appellant instead of preventing the deceased pouring kerosene upon herself lit the match stick resulting in fire and causing burns. The appellant knew very well that the body of the deceased was drenched with kerosene yet he indulged in the cruel act of lighting the match stick. In the circumstances, we find it difficult to accept the submission that the contents of dying declaration (Ex.P-

16. No other point is urged.

17. For the aforesaid reasons we confirm the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC and the sentence awarded by the High Court.

18. These appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. ..........................................J. (B. Sudershan Reddy) ..........................................J. (Aftab Alam) New Delhi;

June 17, 2009