MUDDANGULA GANESH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORSU Nagamma was married to one Narasimha, in the year 2002, and they had a boy out of their wedlock. However, Narasimha died shortly thereafter. For her livelihood, Nagamama is said to have gone to Hyderabad as a labourer. The accused, by name, Muddangula Ganesh was a mason. He is said to have taken advantage of the fact that, the said Nagamma worked with him, for quite sometime, and illicit intimacy developed between them. After she worked one year at Hyderabad, Nagamma came to the place of her parents i.e., Tharnikal Village in Mahabubnagar District.

(2.) ON 23.06.2007, the accused is said to have gone to the house of the Nagamma, and that latter, asked him to go away. Enraged with that, the accused is said to have poured kerosene on Nagamma, and set her on fire. In the process of struggling, the accused is also said to have received burn injuries. Nagamma was shifted to the Government hospital at Kalwakurthy. At about 11.30 a.m., in the night, the A.S.I of police, PW.9, received information about the incident, and registered a case in Crime No. 118 of 2007. He recorded the statement of the deceased, marked as Ex.P7. Shortly thereafter, the executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, Kalwakurthy, went to the hospital, in the mid night, and recorded Ex.P3, another dying declaration. Nagamma died on 24.06.2007 at 4.00 a.m. Inquest, and Postmortem, was conducted. On the basis of the statement made by her, the F.I.R was prepared, and the accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. After completing the investigation, PW.10 filed the charge sheet. The trial Court framed the charge. Since the accused denied the allegation as to commission of offence, the trial was conducted.

(3.) SMT A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, submits that, though two dying declarations were said to have been recorded, none of them accorded with the prescribed procedure. She submits that the Medical Officer, examined as PW.7, categorically stated that either when Ex.P7, was recorded by PW.9, at 11.30 in the night, or when PW.6, recorded Ex.P3 at 12.00 in the mid night, his opinion, as to the condition of the patient was sought. She contends that the version presented by PW.1, the mother of the deceased, is at variance with what is contained in Ex.P3 and Ex.P7. It is also pleaded the fact that the incident occurred on account of the falling of kerosene lamp, on the cotton bed, upon which, the deceased and the accused was sleeping, has been elicited from none other than the Investigating Officer, PW.10. Learned counsel further submits that the judgment of the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.