ULLENGULA NARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE agreeing with my learned Brother with regard to the findings and sentence of imprisonment, I wish to add few words of my own. It appears from the fact on record that it is undisputed position that the victim died of burn injuries and, from Ex.P9 -Post Mortem certificate, it appears that the cause of death of the deceased was due to septicemia, which was caused by burn injuries sustained by her because kerosene was poured on her body and then she was set on fire. Ex.P9 -Post Mortem certificate further reveals that the extent of the burn injuries was 80 to 90%. It is also admitted position that even after sustaining burn injuries she survived for more than 40 days. The defence plea is innocence totally. No theory of tutoring has been brought out by the defence. Then, the only question remains is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case under Sections 302 and 498 -A of I.P.C.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused -appellant, but relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 to 5 and 8 convicted him though their evidence do not corroborate with each other. According to the prosecution, P.W.1, who is cousin of the deceased and who gave Ex.P1 -report tothe police, is the alleged eyewitness. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses to the incident and they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Even though the prosecution has cited as many as 26 witnesses, only 17 witnesses were examined, out of them P.Ws.1 to 4 are the alleged eyewitnesses and P.Ws.5, 6 and 8 are the witnesses deposing circumstances. P.W.9 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W.10 is a person working in Gram Panchayat to whom the accused made extra judicial confession.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that the deceased died because of the burn injuries and the same are inflicted by the accusedappellant himself. The case is not founded solely on the basis of the dying declarations, but based on the confession of the accused as well and also the oral dying declaration made before P.W.10. It is for the accused -appellant to explain as to how the incident of burning took place. It is also for the accused -appellant to explain as to who poured kerosene on the deceased and how the fire took place since admittedly the deceased was residing along with the accused -appellant in the same house on the fateful night of the incident. In the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused -appellant did not choose to examine any witness to prove that the incident of fire took place accidentally. Therefore, he says that the findings and conviction recorded by the trial Judge are absolutely correct and there is no need for interference.