BOPPALA SIDDAPPA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed challenging the order of conviction of the sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as under: The deceased was the wife of the accused who married her about ten years ago prior to the date of offence. The accused was not looking after the deceased and was harassing and torturing her and that he married another woman before the date of incident. The harassment and torturing was to the extent of alleging unchastity of the deceased. While so on 25-6-1992 at about 7.30 p.m. the accused came along with his friend and consumed liquor at his house and after his friend left the house, he beat his wife with chappal and in the mid night again he beat her severely. There upon the deceased in order to create fear in the mind of the accused poured kerosene on herself, as if she is going to commit suicide. But the accused with an intention to kill his wife threw the matchstick at her, as a result of which the deceased caught fire and sustained burn injuries. He did not take her to the hospital, and that the neighbours informed the police and the police shifted her to Gandhi Hospital and there she succumbed to burn injuries while undergoing treatment on 2-7-1992. The accused was arrested on 5-7-1992. The hospital authorities informed the police on 26-6-1992 at about 11.00 a.m. Immediately after receiving the intimation from the hospital, the head constable P.W. 10 went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P-9 at about 11.00 a.m. P.W. 11 Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case and issued FIR under Ex.P-10. After issuance of F.I.R. he sent a requisition to P.W. 9 (Mandal Revenue Officer) Executive Magistrate to record the dying declaration of the deceased and in turn P.W. 9 recorded the dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P-8 between 12.50 to 1.30 p.m. on 26-6-1992. The doctor P.W. 8 who conducted the post-mortem has issued Ex.P-7 post-mortem certificate.

(3.) In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and MOs. 1 and 2. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined.