KOTHALA SRINU Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2009 on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment, dated 25.01.2010, whereby he was convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment (S.I.) for two months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Kothala Parvathi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was the wife of the appellant, that the marriage between them was performed ten years prior to the death of the deceased, that they were blessed with two female children out of their wedlock, that the couple were residing with their children at G. Mamidada Village and that the appellant is habituated to consuming liquor and used to harass the deceased, by way of beating her, without any reason in drunken state everyday. That on the night of 07.08.2008 at 7.30 p.m., the appellant returned to the house, by consuming liquor and started quarrelling with the deceased as usual and during the quarrel, the appellant picked up kerosene bottle lamp, poured kerosene over the deceased and lit fire to her, with a match stick, as a result of which, flames engulfed the deceased through the silk sari and silk blouse she wore and she sustained burn injuries on chest, stomach and back. That P.Ws.5 and 6 are the neighbours of the locality, who witnessed the deceased burning in flames, that they extinguished the fire by pouring water and that the appellant absconded. That P.W.1, mother of the deceased, after coming to know about the occurrence of the incident, rushed to the spot and shifted the deceased to the Government General Hospital (GGH), Kakinada, where she succumbed to burns, while undergoing treatment on 12.08.2008 at 6.00 p.m.

(3.) Smt. B. Vaijayanthi, learned panel counsel for Legal Aid appearing for the appellant/accused, has submitted that the deceased gave conflicting dying declarations and that she stated before the Magistrate, P.W.9, to the effect that the accused in a drunken state, picked up quarrel with her, poured kerosene on her and lit fire with a match stick, due to which she sustained serious burnt injuries, while in the statement recorded by P.W.11, Head Constable, she stated that following a quarrel between herself and her husband, in anger, she has poured kerosene from a bottle on herself threatening that she would die, whereupon, her husband lit fire with a match stick. The learned counsel has further submitted that when there are serious contradictions between the two dying declarations of the deceased and in the absence of clear evidence on record proving the guilt of the appellant, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Lingaiah v/s. State of A.P. : 1994 Crl.L.J. 1242.