AKULA SREENIVASULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, being the sole accused in S.C.No.644 of 2012 aggrieved by the conviction judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District, dt.28/6/2013 finding him guilty for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 302 IPC respectively in sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence u/sec.302IPC, maintained the present appeal.

(2.) The contentions in the grounds of appeal vis -vis the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant are that the trial Court's conviction judgment is contrary to law, weight of evidence, preponderance of probabilities of the case, the trial Court erroneously relied on the uncorroborated and suspicious dying declaration Ex.P20 recorded by PW12- A.Sai Kumari (AJFCM) and Ex.P12-statement recorded by PW13- M.Narayanaswamy (Head Constable) respectively and convicted the appellant/accused on insufficient grounds without noticing the admission of Dr. PW14-K.Venkateshwar Rao that the deceased Venkatramanamma who suffered 55% to 65% burns would be in semi unconscious state after the incident. The trial court failed to notice that the deceased Venkatramanamma received burn injuries on 9/4/2012 at 11:30 p.m. and succumbed to injuries much later on 27/4/2012 for which the petitioner might have been convicted for offence u/sec.304-II IPC only. The trial court failed to notice that most of the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile and that the father of the deceased, K.Venkatramana stated that his daughter Venkatramanamma (deceased) set fire to herself and died and the trial Court also failed to consider the fact that the deceased once consumed "vasmal" earlier as found from Ex.P20 dying declaration which shows her suicidal tendency, the benefit of doubt to the appellant/accused should have been given holding that she must have committed suicide by setting fire to herself as stated by her father-PW1-C.Venkataramana. The trial court also failed to consider the inconsistency in the medical evidence with the ocular testimony produced by the prosecution and should have acquitted the appellant on that ground. Thus the trial Court's conviction judgment supra is thereby unsustainable and liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal acquitting the appellant/accused.

(3.) Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor representing respondent/ State in opposing the same supported the trial Court's judgment in finding the petitioner guilty for both the offences and also the sentence of imprisonment with fine and further submitted that for this Court while sitting in appeal against the trial Court's said conviction judgment or on the quantum of sentence, there is nothing to interfere and the trial Court judgment is well considered and supported by reasons having fresh in mind of the facts, merely because of some other view is possible, the Court cannot rightly interfere with the appeal as held in Abdul Razaq Vs. Nanhey and others1 and sought for dismissal of the appeal.