BOGI BHADRAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOGI Baby Rani was married to the appellant herein in the year2000 and they had a female child out of the wedlock. At about 9 p. m. on 22-02-2003, she was admitted in the government General Hospital, Khammam with serious burn injuries. Requisition was give to p. W. 11, the Magistrate, to record the declaration of Baby Rani. In the declaration, she has stated that in the evening on that day, her husband, the appellant herein, had poured kerosene and set her on fire. The A. S. I, of police, Karepalli, is said to have recorded the statement of Baby Rani atabout 8 p. m. before she was sent to the hospital. Based on that, he registered crime No. 23 of 2003 under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC ). While undergoing treatment, the patient died in the mid night intervening 22/23-02-2003. Provision in the F. I. R. was altered to section 302 IPC. Inquest and post mortem were conducted on the dead body. After the investigation was concluded, the Court of the v Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), khammam at Kothagudem, framed charge against the appellant alleging that he caused the death of his wife and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty. Through its judgment dated 24-02-2006, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence alleged against him and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Fine of rs. 1,000/- was imposed with a direction that in default of paymentthereof, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The judgment of the trial Court is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel, submits that though there are two dying declarations in this case, both of them sufferfrom very serious infirmities. As to ex. P-12, the dying declaration recorded by the A. S. I. , learned counsel submits that the same cannot be treated as proved, since the said A. S. I, was not examined as a witness. As to Ex. P-11, the dying declaration recorded by p. W. 11, he submits that there are several infirmities such as difference of the name of the person, who recorded the statement, inconsistency as to the manner in which the deceased is said to have signed Ex. P-11 and the absence of any statement from P. W. 13, who is said to have certified the condition of the patient. He further submits that almost all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution and the trial Court had convicted the appellant without there being any proper basis.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that even if Ex. P-12 is eschewed from consideration, Ex. P-11 can constitute the basis to sustain conviction against the appellant. He contends that the discrepancy pointed out in relation thereto is very trivial and the contents thereof are supported by the medical evidence.