DHONDA RAMALINGAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No.308 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. He was charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for killing his wife by fire.

(2.) The story of the prosecution is briefly as follows : The deceased Dhonda Muthyalamma was the wife of the accused Ramalingaiah. They were living at Pillalamarri village in Nalgonda District. They were blessed with a son and four daughters. The accused used to do business in scrap and the deceased was attending to agricultural labour work. The accused used to frequently beat the deceased in drunken state. On 14.2.1998, at about 11.00 p.m. he came to the house in a drunken state and picked up a quarrel with the deceased and beat her. On seeing the accused beating the deceased, their children came out of the house. The accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire on her by lighting a matchstick. The deceased came out of the house with flames and cried. On seeing it, the accused ran away from the scene of offence. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital at Suryapet during the same night i.e., in the early hours of 15-2-1998. At about 2.45 hours the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in the presence of the Doctor. Four days later, the deceased succumbed to be burns. Therefore, a crime was registered and after conclusion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Suryapet rural laid the charge-sheet. The Sessions Court framed a charge against the accused under Section 302 IPC for intentionally or knowingly causing the death of the deceased by setting fire to her. The accused denied the offence and claimed for trial.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined PWs. 1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P17 and MO1. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. Except denying the commission of the offence, he did not come forward with any defence. The prosecution witnesses viz., PWs.1 to 7 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.