Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rapuru Prasad vs The State Of A.P., on 20 January, 2022
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.734 OF 2015
JUDGMENT :
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
1. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.186 of 2013 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, SPSR Nellore District at Gudur is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for subjecting his wife by name Puttamma to cruelty and causing her death on 14.04.2012. Vide judgment dated 16.07.2015, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under both the counts and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.
2. The facts, as revealed from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are as under.
2
P.Ws.8 and 9 are sisters of the deceased Puttamma, while the accused is the husband of the deceased. Marriage of the accused with the deceased took place about 12 years prior to the date of the incident. They were blessed with two female children and both of them were studying at the time of the incident. The deceased was working as an Anganwadi Teacher at Yachavaram, while the accused was a mason. It is stated that the accused used to harass the deceased right from the beginning and he was also addicted to alcohol. Some criminal cases were filed against the accused by the deceased, which, however, ended in a compromise. Even thereafter, the accused used to beat the deceased. While things stood thus, on 14.04.2012 at about 1.00 or 1.30 PM, there was some noise from the house of the accused, which made P.W.3, P.W.7 and others run towards the house of the deceased. On reaching there, they noticed the doors of the house closed and the accused was standing in front of the western side door of the house. He was raising alarm stating that his wife was burnt. Out of the two doors, one door was locked from inside while the other door was locked from outside. Western side door which was locked from inside was broke open with the help of a crow bar by the villagers. On entering the house, the neighbours found the deceased with burn injuries. The accused, who was there at that 3 time, left that place. Immediately, information about the incident was given to P.Ws. 1, 2 and others. The people who gathered there, more particularly family members of the deceased, except the husband, shifted the injured to Gudur Hospital in an Ambulance.
P.W.14, who was working as Head Constable of I Town Police Station, Gudur, received intimation about the admission of the injured in the Government Hospital, Gudur. Ex.P11 is the said intimation. On receipt of the said intimation, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased, which was also endorsed by P.W.16-Doctor, who was present at the time of the recording the statement. Ex.P12 is the said statement. The same was informed to Manubolu police station on the point of jurisdiction. From Gudur Hospital, the injured was shifted to Narayana Hospital, Nellore, where she died by 5.00 PM.
Basing on Ex.P12, P.W.15-Head Constable of Manubolu police station registered a case in crime No.55 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC. Ex.P13 is the F.I.R. After receiving death intimation from the hospital, which is marked as Ex.P14, he altered the section of law to one under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P15 is the altered F.I.R.
4
P.W.18, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation in the matter. On receipt of the altered F.I.R., he proceeded to Narayana General Hospital, Nellore and recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 3. From there, he, along with his staff, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared panchanama of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P6. At the scene, he seized M.Os.1 to 12 in the presence of P.Ws.10 and 11. Thereafter, he prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P17. On the same day, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.10 and 11. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. After completing the inquest proceedings, P.W.18 forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.12, who was working as Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine at D.S.R. Government District Headquarters Hospital, Nellore, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P9- post mortem certificate. According to the Doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was secondary shock due to burns.
On 16.04.2012, P.W.18 arrested the accused at Seven Hills Brandy Shop and seized M.Os.13 and 14 in the presence of P.Ws.10 and 11, and thereafter, sent him to remand. After collecting all the necessary documents, a charge sheet came to be filed which was taken on file as 5 P.R.C.No.45 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur.
3. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused. Since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the same was committed to the Court of Session under Section 209 Cr.P.C.. On committal, the same came to be numbered as S.C.No.186 of 2013.
4. Charges under Sections 302 and 498A IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked Exs.P1 to P17 and M.Os.1 to 14. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused in support of his defence.
6. Believing the oral dying declaration made before P.W.2, coupled with Ex.P12-dying declaration recorded by P.W.14, which was endorsed by the Doctor, who was 6 examined as P.W.16, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.
7. Sri H.Prahalada Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submits that there is no legal evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime. According to him, the dying declaration Ex.P12, which was made the basis to convict the accused, cannot be relied upon since the same was created for the purpose of this case. In other words, his argument is that as the dying declaration Ex.P12 contains two thumb impressions, a doubt arises as to whether it was the dying declaration which was recorded by the police or whether it was created for the purpose of this case. It is his submission that in the absence of any other material, Ex.P12 dying declaration cannot be made the basis to convict the accused.
Insofar as the oral dying declaration made before P.W.2 is concerned, it is his contention that P.W.2, being a relative of the deceased, has a grouse to speak against the accused and toe in line with the prosecution. As regards the presence of the accused at the scene, he would contend that except the evidence of P.W.7, there is no other evidence on this aspect and as such the uncorroborated 7 testimony of P.W.7 cannot be relied upon to show the presence of the accused at the time of the incident.
8. On the other hand, Sri S.Dushyant Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that if really the prosecution intended to create a dying declaration, they would not have used a paper which contains two thumb impressions and they would have taken one thumb impression on a paper and created the dying declaration. He further submits that the material on record, more particularly, the evidence of P.Ws,1, 7 and 8, would show that the accused was harassing the deceased all through and the earlier cases filed were withdrawn because of compromise. It is his submission that inspite of the withdrawal, there was no change in the attitude of the accused and ultimately he caused the death of the deceased. He further submits that there are no reasons to disbelieve the dying declaration, as P.W.16-Doctor, who was present there, made endorsement on Ex.P12-with regard to the mental condition of the deceased. He further submits that underneath the signature of the Doctor in Ex.P12-statement, there is no mention of name of the Doctor or seal of the Doctor, but the said signature of the Doctor is not disputed by the accused and no suggestions were given to the Doctor with regard to genuineness of the said signature. On the other hand, answers came to be 8 elicited through the evidence of P.W.18 which clearly demonstrate that it was the accused who was responsible for the death of the deceased.
9. The point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt?
10. In order to appreciate the rival arguments advanced, as stated earlier, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused mainly attacked Ex.P12-dying declaration recorded by P.W.14-Head Constable, who proceeded to the Government Hospital, Gudur pursuant to Ex.P11-intimation from the hospital. Before dealing with the said declaration, we would like to refer to the other evidence available on record which connects the accused with the crime.
11. P.W.1, who is a resident of Yachavaram village, though declared hostile, deposed that on the date of the incident, while he was on the pial, he heard alarm from the house of the deceased and the accused. He ran to that place and noticed flames inside the house and the deceased was in flames. According to him, both the doors of the house were locked, one from inside and the other from outside. He broke open the wooden door, thereafter, along 9 with one Ankaiah(P.W.3), brought the injured to Government Hospital, Gudur, and subsequently, he came to know that she was shifted from Gudur. Thereafter, he was declared hostile by the prosecution.
12. From the evidence of P.W.1, it stands established beyond doubt that there was an incident in the house of the accused and the deceased, in which the deceased sustained burn injuries, and out of the two doors of the house, one door was locked from inside and the other door was locked from outside. It is to be noted here that it is nobody's case that the deceased locked the door from inside.
13. P.W.2 is related to the deceased i.e. the deceased was her sister's daughter. According to her, the deceased was working as Anganwadi Teacher at Yachavaram, while the accused was a mason, and from the beginning, the accused used to beat the deceased and he was also addicted to alcohol and other vices. Criminal cases were registered against the accused at the instance of the deceased, but pursuant to a compromise arrived at, the said cases were closed and the deceased joined the accused. But, there was no change in the attitude of the accused and he continued to harass the deceased, leading to the incident in question. According to her, while she 10 was at Manubolu, in the house of her daughter, she received a message from her daughter (P.W.9) that the deceased was set on fire. She proceeded to the house of the deceased and found her with burns all over her body and villagers gathered there. She informed about the incident to the relatives of the deceased and thereafter, with the help of the villagers and others, shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Gudur. While taking the deceased in the Ambulance, she questioned the deceased as to how the incident occurred, to which she disclosed that she was put in the house and locked from outside. The deceased also disclosed about the accused pouring kerosene and setting her on fire.
P.W.2 was cross-examined at length, but nothing useful came to be elicited to discredit her testimony. In fact, it would be appropriate to extract the answer that was elicited in her cross-examination.
"I informed to the police that I asked the deceased Puttamma while we are in the Ambulance and she stated that the accused poured kerosene, set fire and locked the house."
From the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that though she was not present in the village, she received message from P.W.9, who is her daughter, and on receipt of the said message, she proceeded to the house of the deceased and 11 then shifted the deceased to the hospital, and on the way to Hospital, she enquired with the deceased, who disclosed the manner in which she was set on fire. In fact, it was categorically elicited, as observed supra, in the cross- examination about the oral dying declaration made by the deceased. Though the witness has stated in the examination-in-chief about the oral dying declaration, but even in cross-examination, it was categorically elicited about the declaration made by the deceased.
14. P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6 did not support the prosecution case and were treated hostile by the prosecution.
15. P.W.7, who is sister of the deceased, deposed in her evidence that she is resident of Yachavaram village of Manubolu mandal, and one house intervenes her house and the house of the accused and the deceased. On 14.04.2012 at about 1.00 PM, while she was in her house, she noticed the accused standing in front of the western side door way and was raising alarm stating that his wife was burning. Then, she along with others went there, broke open the western side door which is wooden door, with the help of crow bar. While she was standing, other villagers entered the house and found the deceased with burn injuries. Then the accused went away from that 12 place. According to her, eastern side door way was locked from outside while the western side door was locked from inside, and this being a wooden door, it was broke open. She informed about the incident to her mother P.W.2 and after the arrival of others, shifted the injured in Ambulance She came to know about the death of the deceased at about 5.00 PM.
According to her, the deceased used to visit her house now and then and tell about the disputes between herself and her husband, and she used to advise the deceased to adjust herself. She also disclosed that when enquired with her mother, her mother i.e. P.W.2, informed about the oral dying declaration made by the deceased while she was being taken to the hospital. Even this witness was cross- examined at length, but all the suggestions given with regard to the acts of harassment, etc. were denied, and nothing useful came to be elicited with regard to the information furnished by P.W.2 namely the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to her and the acts of harassment by the accused.
16. P.W.8 is another brother of the deceased, whose evidence toes in line with the evidence of P.W.2. He also speaks about the vices of the accused and the harassment to the deceased in the hands of the accused, which was 13 informed by his sister to him and others. According to him, on the date of the incident at about 4.00 or 5.00 PM, he received message from P.W.2 about the incident in question and immediately he proceeded to Narayana General Hospital, Nellore where he was informed about the death of the deceased. He noticed burn injuries on the body of the deceased.
` 17. P.W.9 is another sister of the deceased, who is resident of Chillakuru village. In her evidence, she deposed about the harassment by the accused, the filing of the criminal cases by the deceased, the compromise arrived at and the withdrawal of the criminal cases. She also speaks about the deceased joining the accused after the compromise and the accused harassing the deceased even thereafter. After receipt of information from P.W.2 about the incident in question, P.W.9 along with her sister and brother went to the Government Hospital, Gudur and noticed the deceased with burn injuries. On enquiry, the deceased disclosed that the accused, after sending their children to Sangam Tirunallu, poured kerosene, locked the house doors, came outside and lit a match stick and set fire the deceased, due to which she sustained burn injuries. As both the doors were locked, she was not able to come out. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Narayana General Hospital, Nellore. This, in substance, is the oral 14 evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused.
18. As seen from the evidence of these witnesses, though none of them have seen the incident in question, but the deceased is said to have made an oral dying declaration to P.W.2, while she was being shifted to Hospital, and thereafter before P.W.8, who is her sister, when she enquired about the incident, at the Government Hospital, Gudur.
19. Though the learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that there are inconsistencies in the two statements, but we are of the opinion that there is no inconsistency in the two statements made by the deceased with regard to the manner in which the incident took place. On the other hand, both the statements categorically disclose as to how the accused caused the death of the deceased viz. pouring kerosene on the body, closing the doors and setting her on fire, thereby preventing her from moving out of the room. Apart from that, evidence of these witnesses also disclose the acts of harassment which led to registration of the criminal cases, which were compromised at the instance of elders and thereafter the accused again harassing the deceased after she joined him. 15
20. Apart from the oral evidence, which has been referred to above, there is a written dying declaration Ex.P12 recorded by P.W.14-Head Constable attached to Gudur police station. P.W.14 in his evidence categorically stated that on 14.04.2012, while he was in police station attending to his duties, received Ex.P11-hospital intimation disclosing admission of a woman with burn injuries. After receipt of the said intimation, he rushed to the hospital, identified the victim with the help of the staff and recorded the statement of the injured. The said statement was endorsed by P.W.16-Doctor to the effect that the patient was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give her statement.
21. This statement is sought to be commented upon by the learned counsel for the appellant contending that there are two thumb impressions on that statement and the statement has been fabricated and brought into existence for the purpose of this case by the police, in connivance with the Doctor. It is no doubt true that a perusal of the said statement would show two thumb impressions on the said statement. But, there is no gap between the two thumb impressions. It appears that the first thumb impression was not properly taken i.e. not complete, and hence, immediately just below that, another thumb impression was taken. The two thumb impressions 16 do not cover the space between the last line of the statement and the thumb impression. If really, the empty space at the said place is sought to be filled up, then the second impression, which is complete, would have been taken on the top of the first impression and not below. Further, if really the police wanted to create a dying declaration to suit their convenience, they would have used a paper which contained only one thumb impression. In other words, they could have taken a thumb impression on a paper and got mentioned the contents of the statement on the said paper.
22. Apart from that, it is also to be noted that immediately just beneath the contents of the statement and adjacent to the place of thumb impression, the Doctor made an endorsement with regard to mental state of the deceased while giving the statement. Beneath the said endorsement, he signed with date. It may be true that name of the doctor and the seal of the hospital were not affixed beneath the signature, but, there is no dispute with regard to the signature of the Doctor on the said endorsement. P.W.16 is the Doctor who made the said endorsement. He, in his evidence, categorically deposed that on 14.04.2012, the injured was admitted in the Casualty Ward while he was on duty in the said ward, and he informed the police through Ex.P11, and the police came 17 and recorded statement of the injured in his presence and he also endorsed on the said statement to the effect that the patient was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind while recording the statement. The said endorsement is marked as Ex.P16. In cross-examination, he admits that he has not written his name below his signature. But nothing has been elicited to show that the signature found on Ex.P12-statement is not that of P.W.16.
23. At this stage, it is urged that the prosecution should have made all efforts to get the statement recorded by a Magistrate. It is to be noted here that the injured Puttamma was admitted in Government Hospital, Gudur at 2.00 PM on the fateful day. She was initially given first aid and immediately thereafter advised to be taken to a better hospital at Nellore, and accordingly, she was shifted to Narayana Hospital, Nellore. She was admitted in the said hospital at 4.40 P.M. and by 5.00 P.M., she died in the said hospital. There was no much time to make arrangements to get the statement of the injured recorded by a Magistrate. Perhaps, the police or the Doctors at Gudur were more concerned with the life of the injured having regard to the nature of burns over her body.
24. P.W.17 is the Doctor, who treated the deceased at Narayana General Hospital, Nellore. According to him, 18 the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day of admission while undergoing treatment, and thereafter, he gave Ex.P14-death intimation. Ex.P14 shows that the deceased was admitted in Narayana General Hospital, Nellore at 4.40 PM on 14.04.2012 and she died at 5.00 PM. Therefore, there was no time for getting her statement recorded by a Magistrate at Nellore. Therefore, in a case of this nature, where the deceased died within 4 hours after the incident, non-recording of her statement through a Magistrate, in our view, may not be fatal, more so, when initially the deceased was taken from the village to a Hospital at Gudur and from there to Narayana Hospital at Nellore. Hence, the argument that the entire case has to be thrown out, since the prosecution has not made any effort to get the statement of the injured recorded by a Magistrate, cannot be accepted.
25. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.17, the Doctor at Narayana General Hospital, Nellore. In the examination-in-chief, he categorically deposed about the contents of Ex.P14, which disclosed about the death of the deceased due to burn injuries caused as a result of accused pouring of kerosene and setting her on fire. In cross- examination, the counsel for the accused elicited about the 19 manner in which the deceased was done to death. It would be appropriate to extract the same, which is as under:-
"While I started treatment she died. By that time she got 90 to 92% burn injuries. Victim herself stated regarding cause to burns. It is not true to suggest that cause for burn not stated by victim, same was stated by her relations."
26. Having regard to the above factors, we feel that it is a case where one cannot doubt Ex.P12-dying declaration recorded by P.W.14, as the same gets corroboration from the oral dying declarations made by the deceased, coupled with the evidence of Doctor. Considering these aspects, we hold that the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused and the same needs no interference by this Court.
27. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 16.07.2015 in Sessions Case No.186 of 2013 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, SPSR Nellore District at Gudur.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Appeal stand disposed of.
______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR __________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO 20.1.2022 DRK 20 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO JUDGMENT in CRIMINAL APPEAL No.734 OF 2015 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) 20.1.2022