PENDYALA RAJU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A2 & A3, A4 and A1 in S.C. No. 316/1998 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, filed criminal appeals Nos.1095/2001, 119/2002 and 756/2003 respectively, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 18.7.2001, whereby they were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month on each count under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for causing the deaths of Ramakrishna, Laxman, Raju and Rajyalaxmi (hereinafter referred to as D1, D2, D3 and D4 respectively), and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each under Section 307 IPC for attempting to cause the death of P.W. 4, with a direction to run the substantive sentences concurrently.

(2.) The facts that led to the filing of the present appeals in brief are as follows. P.W. 1 and A4 are siblings. A1 is the son of A4 and A2 and A3 are friends of A1. D1 and D2 are sons of P.W.4, younger sister of P.W. 1. D3 is the son of younger sister of the wife of P.W. 1. D4 is the daughter of P.W. 1. A1 and A4 are neighbours of P.W. 1. A4 proposed to marry A1 with D4. D4 did not accept the proposal on the ground that she passed S.S.C., but A1 was uneducated. Subsequently when P.W. 1 looked for alliances for D4, A4 queered his efforts. However, at last P.W. 1 could settle the marriage of D4 with a boy of Gunjapadugu village of Karimnagar District to be performed on 17.5.1997. In the intervening night of 12/13.5.1997, D4 and D1 were sleeping on a cot and D2 and D3 were sleeping on another cot in front of the house of P.W. 1 who along with his wife-P.W. 2 and sister-P.W. 3 was also sleeping on the floor beside the cots. In the midnight, on hearing the cries of D4, P.Ws. 1 to 3 woke up and saw the accused near the gate of their house. They poured petrol and kerosene on the deceased persons and threw a burning torch as a result of which all the four deceased persons sustained severe burns. P.W. 4 also sustained burn injuries. On hearing their cries, neighbours came there and extinguished the flames by pouring water. The deceased were shifted to hospital on the way to which D1 died. After admitting the deceased persons and P.W. 4 in the hospital, P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1-F.I.R on the basis of which P.W. 16 registered a case and dispatched the copies of the F.I.R. to all concerned.

(3.) P.W. 17, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. He observed the scene of occurrence and seized certain incriminating articles. After conducting inquest, he sent the dead bodies for conducting post-mortem examination. In pursuance of the confessional statement of A1 on his arrest, M.O.1-5 ltrs. Tin-was seized. After receipt of post-mortem certificates and on completion of investigation, P.W. 17 laid a charge sheet. Two charges - one under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the other under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC - were framed against the accused. They denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. On behalf of its case, Prosecution examined 17 witnesses and marked 19 documents besides M.Os. 1 to 5. On assessment of the evidence on record the trial Court came to the conclusion that the Prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, challenging the correctness and legality whereof the accused filed the present appeals as above said. Learned senior counsel appearing for A2 and A3 contended that it was not possible for the deceased persons or P.Ws. 1 to 4 to identify the assailants of the deceased persons as the incident took place during midnight, that P.Ws. 1 to 3 did not speak about the presence of A2 and A3 at the time and place of incident at or after the inquest but they deposed in the Court that A2 and A3 were also present and so the truth and falsehood have inextricably been mixed up and cannot be separated and therefore it is not desirable to rely on their evidence, that there was no motive for the accused to commit the crime, that the parentage, age, and addresses of A2 and A3 were not specifically mentioned in the dying declaration made by D4, that no endorsement was made in the dying declaration that D4 was in a mentally fit condition to make the declaration, and that the Prosecution did not attempt to get the dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, and so the impugned judgment should be set aside. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the other accused advanced the same arguments. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that on hearing the cries of D4, P.Ws. 1 to 3 woke up and witnessed the incident, that there was no reason for P.Ws. 1 to 4 to implicate the accused falsely, that even if P.Ws. 1 to 4 made some improvements in their evidence, only the improved part of the evidence should be eschewed from consideration, that the dying declaration recorded by the Doctor can be relied upon wherein the presence of A2 and A3 was also mentioned, that since D4 had prior acquaintance with A2 and A3 as they used to come to the house of P.W. 1 along with A1, she did not mention their parentage etc., in her dying declaration, that as Judicial Magistrate was not available, the Doctor recorded the dying declaration who had no reason to falsely implicate the accused, and that the trial Court after considering all the aspects rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and so there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.