Telangana High Court
Chinthapatla Sambaiah, Warangal Dist. vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 1 December, 2018
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1134 of 2013
JUDGMENT (Per Dr.Justice Shameem Akther)
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the appellant/accused, challenging the judgment, dated 28.10.2013, passed in S.C.No.874 of 2012 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, whereby, the Court below convicted the appellant-accused of the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; and for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; and ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. We have heard the submissions of Sri B.S.Venkata Ramesh, the learned Legal Aid counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Telangana) representing the respondent-State and perused the record.
3. The learned Legal Aid counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused would contend that the appellant-accused is an innocent person and falsely implicated in this case. He is not responsible for the fatal burn injuries suffered by his wife- Ch.Padma (the deceased) on 29.04.2012 at 08:00 PM. On coming to know that her wife poured kerosene on herself and set herself Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 2 ablaze, he went to their house and made an attempt to extinguish the fire. In that process, he also sustained burn injuries to his right hand and other parts of the body and took treatment for the same for fifteen days in MGM Hospital, Warangal, as an in-patient. There is specific mention in column No.6 of Ex.P.8-Intimation of accident and injuries to the police, that the alleged cause for the injuries is 'Kerosene Burns (self) on 29.04.2012 at 09:00 PM'. P.W.12-doctor had clarified in his cross-examination that the word 'self' means 'patient herself poured kerosene'. This proves that the deceased herself poured kerosene on her and set herself ablaze. There is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to find the appellant-accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of I.P.C. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt and ultimately prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498A & 302 of I.P.C.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State would submit that there is ample evidence on record to prove the guilt of the appellant- accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 498A & 302 of I.P.C. There is specific evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.14 to the effect that the appellant-accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze on 29.04.2012 at 08:00 PM in their house situated at Athmakur village. Ex.P.10-Dying Declaration of the deceased was recorded in the intervening night of 29/30.04.2012 by P.W.14- Tahsildar concerned, as the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 3 concerned was on leave on that day. In Ex.P.10-Dying Declaration, the deceased clearly and categorically stated that the appellant-accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze suspecting her character. P.W.12-duty doctor also made an endorsement on Ex.P.10-Dying Declaration that the patient was conscious, coherent and mentally fit to give statements at time of recording of her dying declaration. The Court below had elaborately dealt with the entire evidence on record and rightly found the appellant-accused guilty of the offences under Sections 498A & 302 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him. There is nothing to take a different view and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant-accused by the Court below.
5. In view of the above contentions put-forth by both the learned counsel, the points that arise for determination in this Criminal Appeal are as follows:
(1) Whether the appellant-accused had caused the death of the deceased Ch.Padma by pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze on 29.04.2012 at 08:00 PM in their rented house, situated at Athmakur Village?
(2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant-accused for the offences under Sections 498A & 302 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?
(3) Whether the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused by the Court below of the offences under Sections 498A & 302 of I.P.C. is liable to be confirmed/set aside?
(4) To what relief?
6. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the deceased-Ch.Padma was performed with Ch.Sambaiah (appellant-accused) about 12 years prior to the date of the alleged Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 4 incident. They were blessed with a female child. Both of them lived together happily for some time after marriage in rented premises of the house belonging to P.W.5-Sabeera at Athmakur Village. The appellant-accused was a mason by profession and the deceased was also attending to coolie work, as a daily wager. Subsequently, the appellant-accused became addicted to alcohol and started harassing his wife (deceased) physically and mentally for money. He also sold away the gold ornaments presented to the deceased at the time of marriage to consume liquor. The appellant-accused also started suspecting the character of the deceased since she was attending to coolie work as a daily wager and used to beat her indiscriminately. On one occasion, the deceased, unable to bear the continuous harassment meted out to her by the appellant-accused, left the company of the appellant- accused and stayed at the house of her brother (P.W.1). Thereafter, a panchayat was held to resolve the disputes between the appellant-accused and the deceased and on the advice of the elders, the accused agreed to look after the deceased cordially, by giving up his vices. While the matter stood thus, on 29.04.2012, at about 08:00 PM, the appellant-accused came to house, where the deceased and himself were residing, in a drunken state, made the deceased to consume the toddy brought by him forcibly, abused the deceased in filthy language and started beating her. When the deceased resisted the said acts of the appellant-accused, the appellant-accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Unable to bear the pain due to burns, the deceased raised hue and cry and ran out of the house. Seeing the deceased in such a condition, the neighbours (P.W.4 and P.W.5) rushed to her, Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 5 covered her with a blanket and informed 108 Ambulance over telephone. She was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, by her brother-in-law. P.W.5 informed about the incident to P.W.1 (brother of the deceased), who rushed to MGM Hopsital, Warangal, along with his relatives. P.W.1 informed about the incident to P.W.2 (sister of the deceased), who went to MGM Hospital, Warangal, on the next day morning. When P.W.1 and P.W.2 enquired with the deceased about the alleged incident while she was undergoing treatment at MGM Hospital, Warangal, the deceased informed them that the appellant-accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. On a complaint lodged by P.W.1 on 30.04.2012 at about 12:30 hours, P.W.15-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.92 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 498A & 307 of I.P.C. and issued First Information Report and handed over investigation to P.W.13-Sub-Inspector of Police. Since the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries while undergoing treatment at MGM Hospital, Warangal, P.W.13-Sub-Inspector of police altered the sections of law to Sections 498A & 302 of I.P.C. and issued Alteration Memo. After completion of investigation, P.W.15 laid charge sheet.
7. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and committed the case to Sessions Division, Warangal, under Section 209 Cr.P.C., since the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On committal, the Court below registered the case as S.C.No.874 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of I.P.C. The Court below framed charges under Sections 498A and 302 of I.P.C. against the Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 6 appellant-accused, read over the same to the appellant-accused for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. To prove the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 3.
9. When the appellant-accused was confronted with the incriminating material appearing against him and examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he denied the same and contended that he is falsely implicated in the case. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellant-accused. POINTS:
10. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 29.04.2012, at about 08:00 PM, the appellant-accused, suspecting the character of the deceased, poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze and as a result, she died on 03.05.2012 while undergoing treatment at MGM Hospital, Warangal. The further case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused used to torture the deceased physically and mentally suspecting her character and that in a Panchayat held to resolve the disputes between the appellant- accused and the deceased, wherein the appellant-accused had undertaken to maintain cordial relation with the deceased.
11. P.W.1-S.Bhaskar is the brother of the deceased. He lodged a report with the police under Ex.P.1, basing upon which, the instant crime was registered. His evidence reveals that the marriage between the appellant-accused and the deceased took place twelve years prior to the date of the alleged incident. Both the appellant-
Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 7 accused and the deceased lived happily for five to six years. The appellant-accused was a mason. He got addicted to alcohol and did not go for work. The deceased used to go for coolie work for eking out livelihood. The appellant-accused started suspecting the character of the deceased. The appellant-accused sold away gold ornaments of the deceased for money to consume liquor. Six months prior to the alleged incident, a Panchayat was held in the presence of the elders, wherein, the appellant-accused promised that he would look after the deceased well. The appellant-accused and the deceased were having a daughter aged 12 years. On 29.04.2012, the appellant-accused sent their daughter to his house and on the same day around 09:00 PM, the owner of the house in which the appellant-accused and the deceased were residing (P.W.5) informed him through phone that the appellant-accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze and that the deceased was shifted to M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal. Immediately, he rushed to the hospital and found the deceased with burn injuries. She was completely burnt, but she was able to talk. On his enquiry, the deceased stated that in the evening hours of 29.04.2012, the appellant-accused came to the house in a drunken state, brought toddy and asked her to consume the same and on her refusal to do so, the appellant-accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze and when the deceased raised hue and cry, P.W.4 and P.W.5 extinguished the fire and shifted her to MGM Hospital, Warangal. Thereafter, he lodged a report with the police under Ex.P.1 on the next day, i.e., on 30.04.2012. Ex.P.1-report corroborates the evidence of P.W.1.
Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 8
12. P.W.2-V.Lalitha is the sister of the deceased. Her evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the marriage between the appellant-accused and the deceased and the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased. She specifically deposed in her evidence that about 14 months back to the date of her deposition, P.W.1 informed her through phone at 11:00 PM that the appellant-accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. She was asked to come to MGM Hospital, Warangal. On the next day morning, she went to MGM Hospital, Warangal, and found her sister (deceased) with burn injuries all over her body. When she enquired with the deceased about the same, the deceased told that the appellant-accused sent their daughter to the house of P.W.1 in the morning hours of 29.04.2012, picked up a quarrel with the deceased in the evening hours of the same day, dragged her from the house by abusing her in filthy language, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. P.W.2 specifically deposed that the deceased stated to her that the appellant-accused always used to beat the deceased in a drunken state.
13. The evidence of P.W.4-A.Sunitha is that she is a resident of Athmakur Village. P.W.5 is her neighbour. She knows the deceased, who was a tenant in the house belonging to P.W.5. Prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased used to come to her Kirana Shop which was near to their house. About 14 months back from the date of her deposition, at about 07:00 PM, when she was in her Kirana Shop, the locality persons and herself went to the house of the deceased on hearing hues and cries, found the deceased burning in fire and they extinguished the fire. The entire Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 9 body of the deceased was burnt. She further deposed that P.W.5 was also present at that time. On enquiry with the deceased, the deceased stated to her that the appellant-accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.
14. P.W.5-Md.Sabeera is the owner of the house in which the appellant-accused and the deceased used to reside. She deposed that about one year prior to the date of her deposition, she heard from her neighbour that the deceased caught fire and immediately she rushed to the house of the deceased and found the deceased burning in fire. She along with others extinguished the fire by covering the body of the deceased with a blanket. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal in 108 Ambulance. In her cross-examination, she categorically deposed that on enquiry with the deceased, the deceased stated to her that her husband poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.
15. P.W.6-O.Sadanandam is a photographer. He deposed that on a request by Atmakur Police, he went to the scene of offence (house of the appellant-accused) on 30.04.2012 and took photographs of the scene of offence. The said photographs are marked as Ex.P.4.
16. P.W.7-T.Jampaiah is the Upasarpanch of Atmakur village at relevant point of time. He deposed about the Panchayat that took place to resolve the disputes between the appellant-accused and the deceased on the request of P.W.1. He deposed that the mother of the deceased (L.W.9) was also present in the Panchayat. He further deposed that he and P.W.8 advised the accused not to drink and beat the deceased and to live amicably. Subsequently, Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 10 he came to know that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze in the rented premises of the house belonging to of P.W.5.
17. P.W.8-B.Rajender was the Sarpanch of Atmakur village at the relevant point of time. His evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W.7 in all aspects.
18. P.W.9-J.Bixapathi is an outdoor photographer. He deposed that on a request made by the Atmakur Police, he went to MGM Hospital on 03.05.2102 and took photographs of the deceased. He specifically deposed that the deceased was having burn injuries all over her body. The said photographs are marked as Ex.P.5.
19. P.W.10-P.Manjula is an Ex-Sarpanch of Atmakur village. She deposed that in her presence, the police observed the scene of offence, prepared a sketch of scene of offence and seized one empty kerosene tin, one match box and burnt saree pieces of the deceased. She signed on Ex.P.6-Crime details form. She identified the Material Objects seized in the crime.
20. P.W.11-K.Agamma deposed that the deceased was her junior maternal aunty's daughter. She deposed that after the death of the deceased, she went to MGM Hospital, Warangal, and found the deceased with burn injuries all over her body. L.W.15 and L.W.17 were also present there at that time. All of them came to the opinion that the appellant-accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze.
21. P.W.12-Dr.T.Naveen Kumar is a crucial witness in this case. He deposed that he has been working as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 11 MGM Hospital, Warangal, since March, 2008 and also working as a Casualty Medical Officer. On 29.04.2012 at 10:46 PM, he examined the deceased, who was brought by her brother-in-law. The deceased suffered 93% burn injuries. She was referred to Burns Ward. Thereafter, he gave information to the Out Post of MGM Hospital, Warangal, at about 11:10 PM. Ex.P.8 is the said information. He administered antibiotics, painkillers and IV fluids to the deceased. He was present when Ex.P.10-dying declaration was recorded by P.W.14-Mandal Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, and certified that the deceased was conscious, coherent and mentally fit for giving statement. He further deposed that he signed on Ex.P.10-Dying Declaration.
22. The evidence of P.W.14-J.Sanjeeva is that he worked as Tahsildar, Kodakandla Mandal, from 11.02.2011 to 20.04.2013. On 29.04.2012, when he was in his house, he received a telephone call at 11:30 PM from the Police, MGM Out Post requesting him to come to MGM Hospital, Warangal, to record the statement of the deceased. He reached MGM Hopsital, Warangal, at 12:00 midnight and started recording the statement of the deceased at 12:05 AM on 30.04.2012. He deposed that after P.W.12-doctor certified that the deceased was conscious, coherent and mentally fit to give statement, he sent P.W.12-doctor and the nursing attendants out of the room. After ascertaining that nobody was present in the room, he disclosed his identity and the purpose of his visit to the deceased and asked her willingness to give statements for which, she agreed and answered the questions posed by him. He deposed that the deceased stated to him that on 29.04.2012, at about 08:00 PM her husband came to the house in a drunken condition, Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 12 bought some toddy and made her to consume the same forcibly; when the deceased questioned the appellant-accused with regard to his non attending to any work, a quarrel took place between them; on that, the deceased poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze; due to unbearable pain due to burns, she came out from the room and fell down and that she does not know who brought her to the hospital.
23. P.W.15-A.Kishore Kumar is the Inspector of Police. He deposed about Ex.P.1-report lodged with the police by P.W.1, issuance of First Information Report etc., and filing of charge sheet.
24. P.W.16-Dr.K.V.Ramesh deposed about conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 03.05.2012. Ex.P.12 is the Post Mortem Examination Report issued by him. There is specific mention in Ex.P.12 that the deceased, while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the injuries on 03.05.2012 at 12:20 AM.
25. There is no dispute with regard to the deceased suffering 93% burn injuries in the alleged incident that took place on 29.04.2012 at 08:00 PM. As per the evidence of P.W.12-doctor, the deceased suffered 93% burn injuries and took treatment in MGM Hospital, Warangal, from 29.04.2012 to 03.05.2012. There is specific evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 with regard to the deceased suffering burn injuries in the rented premises in the house belonging to P.W.5 situated at Atmakur Village.
26. P.W.14 is the material witness in this case. He was working as a Tahsildar at the relevant of time. He recorded Ex.P.10-dying Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 13 declaration of the deceased at 12:05 AM on 30.04.2012 in MGM Hospital, Warangal. P.W.14-Tahsildar deposed that he ascertained that nobody was present in the room when he recorded Ex.P.10- dying declaration. He clearly and categorically deposed in his evidence that when he questioned the deceased with regard to the burn injuries suffered by her while recording Ex.P.10-dying declaration, she clearly and categorically deposed that the accused, in a drunken state, picked up a quarrel with her and thereafter, poured kerosene on her and set ablaze around 07:00 PM or 07:30 PM. Moreover, P.W.12-doctor made an endorsement on the Ex.P.10-dying declaration that the deceased was conscious, coherent and mentally fit to give statements. P.W.12-doctor also admitted in his evidence that he made such an endorsement in Ex.P.10-dying declaration. It is not shown to have been given on account of any tutoring or prompting by relatives of the deceased. Ex.P.10-dying declaration of the deceased corroborates the evidence of P.W.14-Tahsildar.
27. It is not in dispute that P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the neighbours of the deceased. They clearly and categorically deposed in their evidence that when they enquired with the deceased about the burn injuries, the deceased stated that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. There is evidence of P.W.1 that P.W.5 informed him through phone that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. Though P.W.5 denied the same in her examination-in-chief, she resiled from her earlier statement and stated in her cross-examination that that the appellant-accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. P.W.1 and P.W.2 also stated in their evidence that when Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 14 they enquired with the deceased with regard to the burn injuries, the deceased told that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. There is no dispute with regard to the place of incident, i.e., in the house belonging to P.W.5.
28. It would be apt to emphasize that a dying declaration, being an important piece of evidence, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, since it comes from the mouth of the victim, who is on death bed. The person, who is going to meet his maker, would not lie. Law is well settled that if dying declaration is found to be true, trustworthy, reliable, voluntary and not on account of tutoring or prompting, then it can form sole basis for conviction.
29. It is apt to mention here that in Khushal Rao Vs. State of Bombay1, the Apex Court observed that the statements made by a dying person as to the cause of his/her death, has been accorded special sanctity by the Legislature which should, on first principles, be respected unless there are clear circumstances brought out in the evidence to show that the dying declaration was not reliable.
30. In Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2 the Apex Court held as follows:
"A dying declaration made by person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment, a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the deceased regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death. A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. Once the statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witnesses testifying to the same passes the test of careful scrutiny of the courts, it becomes a very important and a reliable piece of evidence and if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free 1 AIR 1958 SC 22 2 (1993) 2 SCC 684 = 1993 (Cri) 1634 Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 15 from any embellishment such a dying declaration, by itself, can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration."
31. In the instant case, the dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P.10 coupled with the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.14 clearly establishes the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. There is ample evidence on record to substantiate that the appellant-accused used to suspect the character of the deceased and that the deceased was mentally and physically tortured by the appellant-accused. There is also ample evidence on record to substantiate that the appellant-accused was a mason and was not attending to work and started suspecting the character of the deceased as she was going to coolie work to eke out livelihood. When the appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he stated that having come to know that his wife caught fire, he made an attempt to extinguish the fire and in that process he suffered burn injuries to his right hand and other parts of the body. This statement of the appellant-accused proves that he was present at the scene of offence at the time of the alleged incident. This circumstance also strengthens the case of the prosecution that appellant-accused is the person who poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. M.O.1-empty Kerosene tin, M.O.2-three mango match box and M.O.3-burnt saree pieces of the deceased were recovered from the scene of offence and they were identified by P.W.10. Further, there is no reason for P.W.14-Tahsildar, an official witness, to give false evidence implicating the appellant-accused in the grave allegation of murder. Further, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.14 were Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 16 cross-examined at length, but nothing was elicited to discard their evidence. The evidence on record is coherent, consistent and inspires full confidence so as to bring home the culpability of the accused.
32. The learned Legal Aid counsel for the appellant-accused contended that there is a specific mention in column No.6 of Ex.P.8-Intimation of accident and injuries to police (Medico Legal Case) that the alleged cause of death of the deceased is 'Kerosene Burns (self) on 29.04.2012 at 09:00 PM' and that P.W.12-doctor clarified in his cross-examination that the word 'self' means 'patient herself poured kerosene'. Ex.P.8 is dated 29.04.2012, wherein all the details of the deceased are incorporated. P.W.12-doctor had not stated anything in his evidence as to the reason for recording the word 'self' in column No.6 of Ex.P.8. Whether the deceased herself stated to P.W.12-doctor that she herself poured kerosene on her and set herself ablaze or whether the persons accompanying the deceased told the same to P.W.12-doctor is not clear in Ex.P.8. In fact, there is no basis for P.W.12-doctor to record the word 'self' in column No.6 of Ex.P.8. It appears that a casual reference was made by P.W.12 in filling up column No.6 of Ex.P.8 without understanding or knowing the consequences of making such a reference. Nowhere in the evidence of P.W.12- doctor the reason for recording the word 'self' in column No.6 of Ex.P.8 was elicited. When the entire evidence on record is clear, consistent, cogent and creditworthy pointing the guilt towards the appellant/accused, it outweighs the effect of recording the word 'self' in column No.6 of Ex.P.8 by P.W.12-doctor, and the accused cannot derive any strength from the casual reference of the word Dr.SA, J & MGR, J Crl.A.No.1134 of 2013 17 'self' written in column No.6 of Ex.P.8. It cannot be a ground to plead innocence and basing upon the same, the whole evidence on record cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The Court below, having appreciated the entire evidence on record, rightly found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498A & 302 of I.P.C and in our opinion, there is nothing to take a different view. All contentions raised on behalf of the appellant-accused do not merit consideration. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
33. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment, dated 28.10.2013, passed in S.C.No.874 of 2012 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J _____________ M. GANGA RAO, J st 01 December, 2018 Bvv