HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
&
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL Crl.A. No. 461 of 2010
DATE: 05.09.2014
Between:-
Rasa Kesava .. Appellant/ Accused and State of A.P. .. Respondent- Complainant
JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 26.02.2010 delivered in Sessions Case No. 191 of 2008 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District whereby the appellant-accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The deceased – B. Madhavi, who is the daughter of PW1, fell in love with the accused. After coming to know of the love affair, PW1 and his wife proposed to give away her daughter in marriage to the accused, and thereby sought alliance with the parents of the accused, but the proposal was bluntly rejected. Later, the accused developed suspicion and hatred against the deceased that she might marry another boy and started harassing her physically and mentally and tried to put an end to her life. On 07.01.2008, at about 02:00 p.m., while the deceased was alone in her house, the accused went to her, picked up altercation with her, forcibly snatched the love letters and other material papers from her, burnt some of them by pouring kerosene in the presence of the deceased and also poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and put fire to her mercilessly. Later, the accused, being perturbed, tried to quench the flames on her body and in the process received burnt injuries on his hands. Immediately, he rushed out of the house and absconded from the spot. Unable to bear the burning pain, when the deceased raised cries, PWs.3 and 6 rushed to the spot and took the deceased to Government Hospital, Guntur. On the requisition, the learned Magistrate at Guntur recorded the dying declaration of the deceased who died thereafter. Based on the statement of the deceased, a case in Crime No.1 of 2008 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. PW13 conducted post-mortem examination and issued Ex.P11 – Post-
mortem certificate. PW20 – Inspector of Police, Giddalur recorded the statements of the witnesses, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 17.01.2008, visited the scene of offence and prepared the observation report. On 22.01.2008, he arrested the accused and after completing the investigation filed charge sheet.
The trial Court framed the following charge against the accused: “That you on 07.01.2008, at about 2.00 p.m., in the house of the deceased at Racherla with an intention to kill the deceased – Balisetty Madhavi, D/o.B.Maddileti caused burn injuries which are sufficient to cause her death in the ordinary course of nature, by pouring kerosene on her and lit fire and the deceased succumbed to those injuries at 07.30 p.m. on 16.01.2008 in G.G.H., Guntur while undergoing treatment and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within my cognizance.”
When the above charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22 and M.Os.1 to 5. On behalf of the accused, DW1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same.
The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, framed the following point for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or not?
Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the charged offence and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Challenging the same, the accused has filed the present appeal.
Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant – accused has contended that as the parents of the accused did not agree to the marriage of their son with the deceased, the accused started entertaining doubt about the fidelity of the deceased and wanted to do away the relationship with her by destroying the love letters lying with her. Keeping this in mind, the accused went to the house of the deceased and asked her to give him back the love letters written by him, and when she denied, an altercation took place between them wherein he forcibly took them, and out of emotion, he poured the kerosene available there on the deceased and set fire to her, and later tried to put off the flames on the deceased to save her, and when his efforts proved futile, he escaped from the place, therefore, the accused had no motive to kill the deceased, and it is not a case of murder which attracts the ingredients of Section 302 IPC and pleads to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that it is a case of premeditated and intentional killing of the deceased by the accused. The trial Court based on the evidence on record, convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He further submits when the accused went to the house of the deceased and poured kerosene on her that itself shows that he went there with a particular intention to kill the deceased. He further submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on this aspect is clearly clinching and corroborated with the documentary evidence and pleads that the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with.
Now, the point for determination by this Court is:
1. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused of the charged offence, and if so, whether the judgment of the trial Court requires any interference?
POINT:-
As could be seen from the record, both the accused and the deceased are youngsters and they had fallen in love with other and to that effect correspondence was made by way of letters. They wanted to get married each other with the blessings of the elders, but unfortunately the parents of the accused did not agree to their marriage. Further, with a view to destroying the love letters written by him in order to show that no proof of correspondence took place between them in connection with their love affair, the accused went to the house of the deceased, and in the process of forcibly taking away the love letters from her, there took an altercation between them, and ultimately the accused poured kerosene which was available there and lit fire. In this case, there is no eye-witness to the incident and the case is purely based on Ex.P14 - Dying declaration recorded by PW15 – Magistrate. The evidence of PW15 reveals that during the course of altercation, the accused told that he would kill the deceased, and when the deceased asked the accused to kill her, out of emotion, he poured the available kerosene on her and lit fire. The evidence of PW15 further discloses that the accused wanted to extinguish the flames, and in the process, he also sustained burn injuries to his hands and after extinguishing the flames the accused left the place out of fear and his conduct shows that there is no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased.
Having carefully perused the entire evidence on record particularly Ex.P14 - dying declaration, we are of the view that the accused has knowledge that the act of pouring kerosene was likely to cause death, but he had no intention to kill the deceased, therefore, after pouring the kerosene he tried to extinguish the flames. This conduct of the accused strongly attracts the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. Therefore, we do not see any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there exists any grounds for setting aside the conviction imposed on the accused.
For the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to modify the punishment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge from the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to that of 304 Part-II IPC rather than setting aside the impugned judgment.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant – accused by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur, Prakasam District in Sessions Case No. 191 of 2008 vide judgment dated 26.02.2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC are set aside, instead, the appellant – accused is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The fine imposed by the trial Court shall sustain. The accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
G. CHANDRAIAH, J 05.09.2014 M.S.K. JAISWAL, J bcj