M VENKATA RAMANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-3-2002 passed in S.C. No.327 of 2001 on the file of Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, by which the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge found accused-M.V.Ramana guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. However, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 304B IPC and acquitted him accordingly.

(2.) The accused/appellant was put on trial before the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cum VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad for the offence under Section 302 IPC alternatively for the offence under Section 304B IPC.

(3.) The prosecution case in brief is as follows: P.W.2 Smt. Kausalya is mother and P.W.3 Rajita is younger sister of Smt. Hemalatha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). The accused married the deceased in the year 1995. They were blessed with a son. P.W.3 was married to the brother of the accused in the year 1997. The accused was unemployed and whereas the deceased was employed as a clerk in E.S.I. Hospital. Some blickerings peeped into their marital life in the year 1997 i.e., after the marriage of P.W.3 with the brother of the accused. The accused did not allow the deceased to visit her parental home or her relatives' houses. P.W.5 Kurumurthy, maternal uncle of the deceased fell sick and hospitalized in the year 1999. P.W.2 had gone to the office of the deceased and informed her about the ill health of her maternal uncle and asked her to call on him. The deceased ,told her mother that she would call on her ailing maternal uncle after informing the accused. On the night of the fateful day, she sought permission of the accused to see her ailing maternal uncle, which the accused refused. On the intervening night of 3/4-8-1999 some quarrel took place between them over the refusal of the accused to permit her to see her ailing maternal uncle. The accused/appellant, in the said quarrel, took a kerosene tin from the kitchen room and poured kerosene on the deceased and lit fire and thereby she caught in flames. She made hue and cry which drew the attention of P.W.6 Janardhan in whose house the accused and the deceased were residing as tenants. P.W.6 rushed to the portion wherein the accused and the deceased were residing and knocked the door. On opening the door by the accused, P.W.6 found the deceased with burn injuries on her person. He shifted the deceased by an auto to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. PW.15 P. Venkatagiri, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirumalgiri Police Station received a telephonic message from Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad about the admission of the deceased with ninety percent burns on her person. He deputed P.W.I Naseeruddin, Head Constable, to the Hospital. P.W.I reached the hospital at 2.15 a.m. on 4.8.1999 and found the deceased with burn injuries. He recorded her statement which has been exhibited as Ex.P.l. Basing on Ex.P.l statement, P.W.15 registered a case in Cr.No.136 of 1999 under Sections 307 IPC, 498A IPC and issued Ex. P.7 FIR. He inspected the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.12 and got the scene of offence photographed by P.W.13. While observing the scene of offence, he effected seizure of Mos.l to 5. Ex.P.3 is the scene of offence panchanama. P.4 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex. P.6 to 19 are the positive photographs along with the corresponding negatives of the scene of offence. P.W.9 Goutham Prasad, Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, received a requisition from SHO, Tirumalgiri on 4.8.1999 at 6.20 a.m. to record the Dying Declaration of the deceased. Ex.P.6 is the requisition received by him. He rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased on 4.8.1999 at about 6.20 a.m. Ex.P.7 is the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by him. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, on receipt of information of admission of the deceased in the hospital, reached the hospital and made enquiries with her. The deceased stated to P.W.2 and 4 that on the night of the incident the accused poured kerosene and set her on fire and thereby she sustained burn injuries. P.15 arrested the accused on 6.8.1999 and sent him for medical examination since he had burn injuries on his person. P.W.14 Dr.K.Sachin Chander medically examined the accused on 6.8.1999 at 2 a.m. and found ten per cent mixed burns on his person and accordingly issued Ex.P.l6 wound certificate. The deceased succumbed to her burn injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital on 8.8.1999 at about 4.15 a.m. On receipt of death intimation, P.W.15 altered section of law and submitted Ex. P. 18 memo of alteration of section of law before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. P.W.10 B. Shantha, Mandal Executive Magistrate, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 8.8.1999 at 1.30 p.m. in the presence of P.W.8. Ex.P.5 is the inquest report. After the inquest the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. P.W.11 Dr.Rajendrakumar conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 8.8.1999 at 3.30 p.m. and found ante-mortem mixed flame burns all over the body except scalp and soles of both feet. He opined that the deceased died of shock due to burns. Ex.P.8 is the post-mortem report. After completing investigation, P.W.16 G. V.Ramanarao, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ramgopalpet Sub-Division, laid the charge sheet in the Court of XI M.M., Secunderabad. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C.No.2 of 2001 and committed the case to the Court of Session as the offences under Sections 302 and 304B IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On committal, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad took the case, on file as S.C.No.327 of 2001 and made over the same to VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad for disposal according to law. On hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 304 IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which he stood charged, the prosecution examined P.Ws.l to 16 and proved 18 documents and exhibited five material objects. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, found the accused/appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him as stated above. However, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge found the accused/appellant not guilty under Section 304B IPC and acquitted him accordingly. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this criminal appeal.