BOLLAM VASANTHA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was tried by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A and 302 IPC, in S.C.No.367 of 2008, in causing the death of his wife on 01.08.2008 at 2.00 p.m. It was alleged that the accused was married to the deceased about 25 years prior to the date of the incident and they had two sons out of their wedlock. One of the two sons is said to have died. The accused is said to have been addicted to consumption of alcohol. On the date of the incident, he is said to have poured kerosene upon his wife and set her on fire in their house at Mallepalli village of B. Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District. She is said to have been shifted to the Upper Primary Health Center, Porumamilla, by P.Ws.2 and 5 and others.

(2.) ON a requisition issued by the Medical Officer (P.W.10), the A.S.I. of P.S. Porumamilla (P.W.9), reached the spot. Taking into account the precarious condition of the patient, he recorded her statement (Ex.P.1), after P.W.10 certified that the patient was in a position to speak. The patient is said to have stated that the accused poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire. Even while the efforts were being made to refer the case to Rajeev Institute of Medical Sciences at Kadapa, the patient is said to have breathed her last. Crime No.72 of 2008 was registered, alleging that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 498 -A and 302 IPC. The accused was apprehended on 05.08.2008 and further investigation was taken up. P.W.12 filed charge sheet. The trial Court framed charges, and on denial of the same by the accused, trial was conducted. P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were filed. M.Os.1 and 2 were taken on record.

(3.) MS . Ammaji Nettem, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no direct evidence for the occurrence, and the trial Court has convicted the accused, only on the basis of assumptions. She contends that even according to the medical report, the deceased was burnt to the extent of 100% and one cannot expect the deceased to speak, at that stage. She further contends that Ex.P.1 cannot be treated as a dying declaration, inasmuch as the condition of the deceased was not ascertained, much less, the precautions that are required under law were taken, and that Rule 33 of the A.P. Criminal Rules of Practice is violated. Learned counsel submits that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5 cannot be relied upon, since what they have deposed in the Court was at variance with the one stated by them before the police. It is also her case that the post -mortem report revealed that the skin of the deceased was peeled off and the question of taking the thumb impression of the deceased on Ex.P.1 does not arise. Other contentions are also urged.