MAVARI SURYA SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the accused against the judgment in S.C. No. 25 of 1993 on the file of the Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry sentencing him to imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellate-accused and the deceased Mangadevi are the residents of Mallikarjuna Nagar, Rajahmundry and the accused is the husband of the deceased. The accused was married to the deceased about 11 years prior to the incident and they have two sons aged about 11 years and 10 years. The accused was running a cloth shop by name 'Siva Sridevi Textiles'. The accused used to come late in the night that too after consuming liquor, as a result of which there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased and when the deceased protested the accused not to take liquor, the accused got angry and remained dumb for four days prior to the incident and the accused was not talking to the deceased.

(3.) On 31-7-1991 at about 9.30 p.m. the accused took meals, went outside and returned home with a Brandy bottle and after consuming it, he started scolding the deceased by stating that he sustained loss as he married the daughter of his maternal uncle. Further, the accused asked the deceased to sign on blank paper saying that he would write whatever he liked on the papers for which she did not oblige. Then the accused grew wild and began beating her with hands and when the deceased tried to go out of the house, the sccused caught hold of tuft of hair of the deceased and brought into the room. Thereafter the accused closed the doors and attempted to set her on fire by lighting a match stick and then the deceased put off the flames and tried to run away. Then the accused in the drunken state caught hold of the tuft and poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. Due to the burns, the deceased raised cries and the accused also raised loud voice and tried to catch hold of the deceased and in that process, the accused also sustained burn injuries. Then PW 1 heard cries and went to the house of the deceased and thereafter admitted the deceased in the Government Hospital with the help of PWs. 3 and 4. Thereafter PW 12-SI of Police went to the hospital on intimation received and recorded the statement of the deceased which is Ex. P 17. Thereafter the police registered the case as crime No. 250/92 under Section 498-A IPC. Dr. Sudhakar who was on duty at that time has also recorded the statement of the deceased which is Ex. P 15 which was signed by PW 9 as a witness. Again the Sub-Inspector of Police PW 12 recorded another statement from the deceased under Ex. P 19. On 1-8-1992 the deceased died and after receiving the death intimation, the SI of Police altered the FIR as Ex. P 21. The CI of Police PW 13 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW 10-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Rajahmundry conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 1-8-1992 at 2 p.m. and issued Ex. P 16 postmortem certificate who noticed 95% superficial burns. PW 13-CI of Police, Rajahmundry admitted the accused in the hospital for burn injuries and on 15-10-1992, the accused was discharged from the hospital. Thereafter PW 13 arrested the accused and thereafter the accused was sent to judicial custody and after that, he filed the charge-sheet.