KHALEEL RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.191 of 2003 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Originally charge sheet was filed against three persons and they were charged for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC. A-2 and A-3 have been acquitted. A-1 was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also fined Rs.2,000/-, in default, he has to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The learned counsel for appellant submits that the conviction in this case cannot be sustained as the trial Court has convicted the accused on the basis of a dying declaration which is not reliable. He submits that there is no evidence other than the dying declaration and in this case, there are two dying declarations, which contradict each other.

(2.) The prosecution story was that A-1, A-2 and A-3 who were the brother-in-law, husband and mother-in-law respectively, of the deceased Shameem Sulthana, designed a plan to kill Shameem Sulthana because of a property dispute. They poured kerosene over her and set her on fire on 04.05.2002 at about 7.00 hours at Islampura, Jagtial. A Head Constable recorded the statement of injured at the Government hospital, Jagtial, in which she stated that she had been married 12 years prior to the date of occurrence and had four children and was having happy marital life. On 04.05.2002, she was pouring kerosene over the oven and when she lit it to prepare tea, flames caught her sari. She raised hue and cries. Then neighbours rushed to her and extinguished the flames. Thereafter, a dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate in the hospital. Charges are accordingly framed by the trial Court. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. PW-1 is the father of the deceased. He stated that A-2 was the husband of the deceased. A-1 was the brother of A-2, and A-3 was the mother of A-1 and A-2. His daughter had been given in marriage to A-2 about 12 years before and had given birth to four children. This witness did not support the prosecution story and stated that when he heard about the occurrence, he rushed to the hospital and had spoken to his daughter, who told him that she had caught fire accidentally. He was declared hostile.

(3.) PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. She also supported the version given by PW- 1 and did not support the version of the prosecution. PW-3 is the sister of deceased. Again she supported PWs.1 and 2 and was declared hostile as she did not support the prosecution story. Same is the case about PWs.4, 5 and 6, who are neighbours. PW-7 was a Doctor who was on duty when the deceased expired. He stated that under Ex.P-8 he intimated it to the Police.