Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., vs Bolleddu Joseph, on 21 March, 2025
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010565392008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3327]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1550 OF 2008
Between:
The State of AP., ...APPELLANT
Rep By its Public Prosecutor.
AND
Bolleddu Joseph ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent:
1. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.340 of 2007 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Parchur, Prakasam district, whereby and whereunder the respondent herein/sole Accused was found not guilty of the offences 2 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008 punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, accordingly, he was acquitted of the said charges.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows.
i) The deceased is the wife of the accused. The accused married the deceased 20 years prior to 15.02.2006. Soon after the marriage, the deceased joined the accused to lead marital life.
During their wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter (PW.6). Thereafter, the accused used to constantly harass the deceased suspecting her fidelity and he also used to take liquor and spend huge amounts by extracting the amount from the deceased. While so, on 14.02.2006 midnight, while the deceased was taking rest in her house, the accused came to the house in intoxicated state, woke up the deceased and demanded cash for liquor. When she replied that she did not have any amount, the accused abused her, caught hold of her throat and tried to squeeze, but she escaped from him. However, due to constant harassment being made by the accused, the deceased vexed with her life and decided to end her life. Accordingly, she brought kerosene from her house, poured on herself and lit herself to fire. The accused did not take any steps to put off the flames. On hearing the cries 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008 of the deceased, PWs.1 to 3 rushed to the spot and put off the flames. Then the accused also tried to put off the flames and he received burn injuries. The deceased was shifted to Area Hospital, Chirala. On the same day, PW.14 - Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala recorded the dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P7.
ii) On 15.02.2006, PW.13 - Head Constable, Chirala I Town Police Station, recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P5 and forwarded the same to PW.16 - the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karamchedu Police Station, and pursuant to the same, a case in Crime No.7 of 2006 of Karamchedu Police Station was registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and women burns and FIR was submitted to all concerned. PW.16 took up investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses. He also observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. On receipt of death intimation, he altered the Sections to 498-A and 306 IPC and submitted the copies of FIRs to all concerned. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators and recorded the statements of witnesses
iii) PW.12, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Chirala, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008 issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P3 opining that the deceased died due to 100% burns. PW.15 took up further investigation and after receipt of relevant documents and completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.
3. The charge sheet was taken on file as PRC No.11 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parchur, Prakasam district, and as the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with the due procedure prescribed under law, committed the said PRC No.11 of 2006 to the Court of Session, Prakasam district, at Ongole. The said case was numbered as SC No.340 of 2007 and thereafter the same was made over to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Parchur, for disposal according to law.
4. On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC were framed against the accused, contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 16 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and MO.1.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied.
7. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charges levelled against him and, accordingly, acquitted him, vide impugned judgment dated 20.12.2007 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the appellant/State, submits that though there is discrepancy in Exs.P5 and P7 dying declarations, the same would not go to the 6 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008 root of the case in order to acquit the accused. He further emphasized that the accused suffered injuries in the process of putting off the flames, which itself goes to show that the deceased died in the incident due to harassment meted out by the accused. He further submitted that non-examination of the Doctor would not go to the root of the case for the reason that the opinion of the Doctor that the patient was coherent and conscious to give statement during the relevant point of time cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the Doctor was not examined.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ accused submitted that there are number of inconsistent versions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that there are number of contradictions in Ex.P5 statement and Ex.P7 dying declaration of the deceased. He further submitted that PW.6, the daughter of the deceased, deposed that when she enquired her mother as to how she sustained injuries, she had not given any answer. The other version that is culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses is that the deceased was suffering from severe stomach ache and she was expressing her intention to commit suicide, as she was unable to bear the pain in 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008 the stomach. According to the learned counsel, the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is on correct lines and the same does not call for any interference by this Court.
11. Heard. Perused the record.
12. PWs.1 to 3 are the neighbours to the scene of offence. PWs.4, 5, 7 and 8 are the persons who came to know about the incident. PW.6 is the daughter of the deceased. PW.12 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P3 post-mortem report. PW.13 is the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, who, on receipt of requisition from PW.12, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased.
13. According to the prosecution case, when the prosecution witnesses PWs.1 to 8 enquired the deceased with regard to the cause for committing suicide, she categorically stated that unable to bear the harassment meted out to her by her husband, she poured kerosene on herself and set fire to herself. All the material prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution 8 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008 case and they completely turned hostile and deposed that the accused has no bad habits and he was looking after the deceased properly. They further stated that the deceased was suffering from severe stomach-ache and was expressing her intention to commit suicide due to unbearable stomach-ache.
14. P.W.9, who is cited as a mediator for scene observation panchanama and seizure of M.O.1-kerosene tin, did not support the case of prosecution and was treated as hostile.
15. P.W.13 is the Head Constable who recorded Ex.P5 and P.W.14 is the Magistrate, who recorded Ex.P7. From the evidence of PWs.13 and 14, it is quite evident that the duty doctor G. Paul Chandra Sekhar Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital, Chirala, certified with regard to the fact that the patient was coherent and conscious at the time of recording the statements and she was in a fit state of mind to give statement in both Exs.P5 and P7. Quite surprisingly, the said Doctor was not cited as a witness in the charge sheet itself. Because of the said reason, the accused is deprived of eliciting the exact mental condition of the patient at the time of recording the dying declaration and also the statement. 9
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008
16. Ex.P5 statement runs as follows.
"Today i.e., 15.02.2006 night at about 2 "o" clock as my husband came in intoxication and abused me severely and caused mental agony and also stated to die and squeezed my neck, I poured kerosene on myself and set myself to fire and when I raised cries, neighbours came there and put off the flames with water. Then, my son-in-law, daughter, father- in-law of my daughter and my sister and other relatives shifted her to Hospital."
17. Whereas, Ex.P7 dying declaration runs as follows.
"My husband was daily consuming and suspecting my fidelity. Yesterday night at 12 "O", my husband came consuming and was stating that I have illegal connections. He squeezed my neck. Then I woke up, put on the light, poured kerosene on myself and lit match stick and set myself to fire. My husband was witnessing the same. All this was happened in my house. When I fell down with flames, I do not know who brought me to hospital."
18. A perusal of recitals in Exs.P5 and Ex.P7 goes to show that there is variance in both the statements on material aspects. As per the recitals in Ex.P7, the accused (husband of the deceased) was consuming liquor daily and suspecting her fidelity, whereas 10 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008 there is no such recital in Ex.P5. In Ex.P7-dying declaration, the deceased stated that she woke up, put on the light, poured kerosene on herself and lit match stick and set herself to fire. Her husband was witnessing the same. But, her version is absent in Ex.P5 statement.
19. According to the version in Ex.P7-dying declaration, the deceased stated that she fell down with flames and does not know who brought her to hospital. But, as per the version in Ex.P5-statement, it is stated that when she raised cries, her neighbours came and put off the flames with water, and she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Chirala by her relatives. Therefore, there is inconsistency in Exs.P5 and P7 on the said aspect also. Further, according to the prosecution, case, when the accused tried to put off the flames, he also sustained burn injuries. But, the same fact is absent either in Ex.P5 or in Ex.P7. There is any amount of ambiguity in both Exs.P5 and P7 and there were several contradictions in both the statements recorded within a span of one hour. Certainly, the aforesaid aspects would go to the root of the case and a suspicion would arise as to 11 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008 whether the alleged incident as suggested by the prosecution is said to have taken place or not.
20. PW.6, the daughter of the deceased, on coming to know that the deceased was affected with burn injuries, went to her parents' house and enquired the deceased as to how she sustained injuries, for which the deceased had not given any answer. When PW.6 enquired with other witnesses PWs.1 to 8, they deposed that the deceased was suffering from severe stomach ache and unable to bear the pain she took the extreme step of committing suicide. In view of the aforesaid contradictions between Exs.P5 and P7, non-examination of the duty doctor, who certified that the patient was conscious and coherent, is certainly fatal to the prosecution case.
21. Admittedly, there is also no evidence to prove the alleged harassment of the deceased by the accused. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discrepancies in the prosecution case, learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the aforesaid charges and acquitted him of the same. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions 12 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008 Judge is on correct lines and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.340 of 2007 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Parchur, Prakasam district.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Dated:21.03.2025.
Nsr 13 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1550 of 2008 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.1550 of 2008 Dated:21.03.2025 Nsr