*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.197 of 2016

%Dated: 21-02-2024

# Sirimalla Veeranjaneyulu S/o Venkata Subbaiah,

Aged about 29 years, Resident of Moogachinthalapalem

Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Guntur District.

… Appellant

VERSUS

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Judicature.

… Respondent

!Counsel for the appellant : Mr. D. Kodanda Rami Reddy

^Counsel for the respondent : Additional Public Prosecutor

<GIST :

>HEAD NOTE :

?Cases referred :

1. (2022) 4 SCC 741

2. AIR 1958 SC 22

2

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.197 of 2016

Between:

Sirimalla Veeranjaneyulu ... APELLANT(S)

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court.

... RESPODENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI D. KODANDARAMI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy)

Sole accused in Sessions Case No.284 of 2014 on the file of

the learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, at Narasaraopet,

preferred the present criminal appeal, aggrieved by the conviction

and sentence imposed against him for the offence under Section 302

I.P.C., vide judgment dated 14.07.2015 passed in the said Sessions

Case. The appellant/accused was tried for two charges, one under

Section 498-A I.P.C. and the other under Section 302 I.P.C. While

3

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

acquitting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 498-A

I.P.C, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and

sentenced the appellant/accused to undergo imprisonment for life

and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section

302 I.P.C.

2. Substance of the charge against the accused is that prior to

13.12.2012, he used to harass and ill-treat his wife by name

Sirimalla Appamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) both

physically and mentally, demanding her to get back certain land

documents from her parents, and on 13.12.2012 at about 9.00 p.m,

making the very same demand, he picked up a quarrel with the

deceased, manhandled her, poured kerosene on her and set her on

fire, causing her death and thereby committed offences under

Sections 498-A and 302 IPC.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(i) The marriage of the deceased was performed with the

accused about 6 years prior to the date of incident, and at the time

of marriage, parents of the deceased gave an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- and a gold ring to the accused. After the marriage, the

deceased joined the matrimonial home and the couple lead happy

4

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

marital life for some time. They were blessed with a female child,

but the accused did not want a female child and, therefore, on

coming to know about birth of female child, he went to the village of

the parents of the deceased and threw the child on the ground,

upon which the child died. The deceased and her parents intended

to give a report to the police about that incident, but the parents of

the accused, with the assistance of elders of the village, settled the

issue and as per the said settlement, the accused was made to

transfer his two acres of land in the name of the deceased and to

that effect, a document was executed by the accused and it was

kept with the parents of the deceased. Thereafter, the accused and

the deceased lead marital life and were blessed with a daughter and

a son. Thereafter, the appellant started harassing the deceased both

physically and mentally, demanding her to get back the land

document executed by him from her parents, for which the

deceased did not agree. When the deceased informed her parents

about the harassment of the accused, they consoled her and

keeping in view the future of her children, they sent her back to the

matrimonial home.

5

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

(ii) While so, on 13.12.2012 at about 9.00 p.m., the

accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased for not getting back

the land documents, manhandled her and poured kerosene on her

and set fire to her. Unable to bear the pain, the deceased raised

hues and cries and the father of the accused shifted her to

Government Hospital, Vinukonda, and on the advice of the doctor,

she was taken to Government General Hospital, Guntur, for better

treatment and was admitted therein.

(iii) While the deceased was undergoing treatment, on

14.12.2012, P.W.10- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile

Court, Guntur, upon receipt of Ex.P12 - Intimation from the

Government General Hospital, Guntur, visited the hospital at about

5.05 a.m. and after identifying the patient and obtaining

endorsement from the Duty Medical Officer to the effect that the

patient is conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind, recorded

the statement of the deceased, which was marked as Ex.P13. On the

same day, P.W.12 - Head Constable, Government General Hospital,

Outpost PS, upon receipt of Ex.P18- Intimation from the hospital,

visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased,

which was marked as Ex.P19. Upon receipt of the said statement

6

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

along with intimation, P.W.14- S.I. of Police, Bandlamotu Police

Station, registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2012 of Bandlamotu

Police Station, under Section 307 I.P.C., at about 7.00 p.m. on

14.12.2012. Ex.P21 is the copy of F.I.R. He immediately went to the

hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased – Ex.P22 at

about 10.30 p.m. Thereafter, he went to the scene of offence and

kept a guard there. On 15.12.2012, he observed the scene of

offence in the presence of mediators – P.W.9 and another, and

drafted observation report – Ex.P9. At the scene of offence, he

seized two litres green colour bottle having little quantity of

kerosene, one matchbox and partly burnt bed sheet, which were

marked as M.Os.1 to 3 respectively. He also prepared Ex.P10 -

rough sketch of the scene of offence. On the same day, at about

6.00 p.m., he received Ex.P23- Intimation about the death of the

deceased from the Government General Hospital, Guntur.

Thereafter, he altered the Section of law from 307 I.P.C. to 302

I.P.C. Ex.P24 is the altered F.I.R. He informed the Inspector of

Police, Vinukonda Police Station, about the death of the deceased.

(iv) P.W.15- Inspector of Police, having received the

intimation and copy of F.I.R., requested P.W.11 - Tahsildar,

7

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

Bollapalli Mandal, to conduct inquest over the dead body.

Accordingly, P.W.11 conducted inquest over the dead body in the

presence of P.W.9 and others and the inquest report was marked as

Ex.P11. On 16.12.2012, P.W.15 sent the dead body for conducting

post-mortem examination. P.W.13- Assistant Professor, Department

of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, conducted autopsy

over the dead body between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon. He issued

Ex.P20 - Post-Mortem Examination Certificate, opining the cause of

death as due to shock due to burns. On 28.12.2012, P.W.16-

Inspector of Police, Vinukonda Rural Circle, arrested the accused at

his residence in the presence of mediators – P.W.9 and others. After

completion of investigation, P.W.17 - Inspector of Police, Vinukonda

Rural Circle, filed charge sheet.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18

and marked Ex.P.1 to P.26, apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 3.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, when the accused

was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C ., he denied the

incriminating material against him. The accused did not choose to

adduce any defence evidence.

8

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

6. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, while acquitting the accused for the offence under Section

498-A I.P.C., found the accused guilty for the offence under Section

302 I.P.C. and, accordingly, convicted him and imposed the

punishment of imprisonment for life and fine for the said offence, as

already noted above, leading to the filing of the present criminal

appeal.

7. Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/accused, strenuously contends that all the material

prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.1 to 8 did not support the case of

the prosecution and, as such, there is no evidence on record to

convict the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302

I.P.C. He further contends that the learned Additional Sessions

Judge has mainly relied on the dying declaration and statements of

the deceased, i.e., Exs.P13, P19 and P22, despite the fact that they

are not consistent with each other. Learned counsel further contends

that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have based

upon Exs.P13, P19 and P22, which are inconsistent, in convicting the

accused, without there being any corroborative evidence. He,

therefore, prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence

9

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

imposed against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section

302 I.P.C.

8. On the other hand, Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the appeal, contending that

the dying declaration alone can form basis for convicting the

accused without there being any corroboration and in the instant

case, the dying declaration and statements of the deceased are

consistent with each other with regard to the attack made by the

accused and, thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was

justified in imposing the conviction and sentence against the

appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and no

interference therewith is warranted in this appeal.

9. We have considered the submissions made on either side and

perused the entire material on record. As can be seen from the

record, the independent witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.1 to 8, did not support

the case of the prosecution. The learned Additional Sessions Judge

has relied upon the dying declarations/statements of the deceased

under Exs.P13, P19 and P22, to hold the accused guilty for the

offence under Section 302 I.P.C. A perusal of Ex.P13-dying

declaration, which has been recorded by P.W.10 – Judicial

10

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, would show

that it was specifically stated by the deceased that at about 9.00

p.m. on 13.12.2012, the accused picked up a quarrel with her for

not bringing back land documents from her parents, poured

kerosene on her and set fire to her and then left the house. In her

statement given to P.W.12- Head Constable, which was marked as

Ex.P19, and also in Ex.P22-statement given to P.W.14- S.I. of Police,

the deceased narrated the incident in the same manner and stated

that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, after

picking up a quarrel regarding land documents. Thus, the version of

the deceased remained consistent as to the attack made by the

accused on her, leading to her death on the fateful day and the

dying declarations/statements are consistent and there is no

variation in that regard.

10. In State of U.P. v. Veerpal reported in (2022) 4 SCC 741,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the issue

‘whether in the absence of any corroborative evidence, there can be

a conviction relying upon the dying declaration only’ and while

referring to its earlier judgments on the subject, it was held at

paragraph 16 of the judgment as follows:

11

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

“16. Now, on the aspect, whether in the absence of

any corroborative evidence, there can be a conviction

relying upon the dying declaration only is concerned, the

decision of this Court in Munnu Raja [Munnu Raja v. State

of M.P (1976) 3 SCC 104] and the subsequent decision in

Paniben v. State of Gujarat [(1992) 2 SCC 474] are

required to be referred to. In the aforesaid decisions, it is

specifically observed and held that there is neither a rule

of law nor of prudence to the effect that a dying

declaration cannot be acted upon without a corroboration.

It is observed and held that if the Court is satisfied that

the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base its

conviction on it, without corroboration. Similar view has

also been expressed in State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav

[(1985) 1 SCC 552] and Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar

[(1983) 1 SCC 211]. Therefore, there can be a conviction

solely based upon the dying declaration without

corroboration.”

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also referred to the principles laid

down in its earlier judgment in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay

reported in AIR 1958 SC 22, as to the circumstances under which

a dying declaration may be accepted without corroboration, and

having observed that there runs a common thread in the statements

of the deceased as to the attack made by the accused therein, held

12

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

that the said dying declarations, which were consistent with medical

evidence, could be relied upon in convicting the accused.

12. In the instant case also, all the statements of the deceased

under Exs.P13, P19 and P22, are consistent with each other with

regard to the aspect that the accused poured kerosene on her and

set her on fire, after quarrelling with her regarding land documents.

We see no reason to disregard the said statements, which are

consistent with each other with regard to the involvement of the

accused in the commission of murder of the deceased by pouring

kerosene on her and setting her on fire, and thus, can form the

basis for conviction of the accused without any corroboration. In

view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the

conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 302

I.P.C. needs no interference in this appeal.

13. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed as devoid of

merit and the conviction and sentence imposed against the

appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., vide

judgment dated 14.07.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.284 of 2014

13

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

by the learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, at

Narasaraopet, is hereby confirmed.

14. Consequently, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

______________________

JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

__________________________

JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

Dt: 21.02.2024

IBL

14

KSR,J & BVLNC,J

Crl.A.No.197 of 2016

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

Criminal Appeal No.197 of 2016

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)

Date: 21.02.2024

IBL