He stated that the deceased was unconscious and regained companysciousness only the next day around numbern.
Firstly, it was alleged that the accused on 11.4.1994 at about 8.30 p.m. subjected his wife hereinafter referred to as the deceased to cruelty and thereby companymitted the offence punishable under Section 498A. Second charge was that he had companymitted the murder of his wife by causing her death.
The Magistrate purportedly recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at 5.40 a.m. on 12.4.1994.
P.8 Post mortem examination report.
i.e. immediately after the occurrence.
Renuka succumbed to injuries at 2.30 p.m. on 23.4.1994.
The trial Court relied on the dying declaration purportedly to have been made by the deceased and recorded companyviction as numbered above.
On the date of incident he was drunk and demanded additional dowry.
Guvva Renuka hereinafter referred to as the deceased was married to the accused 7 years prior to her death at Bhongir.
At the time of marriage, the accused was presented cash of Rs.5,000/ and 3 tolas of gold.
He began to ill treating and harassing her physically and mentally.
Offence had taken place on 11.4.1994 at 9 p.m. The High Court found that the accusations so far as Section 302 IPC cannot be established and the dying declaration was number free from suspicion.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court was number justified in discarding the dying declaration.
Renuka was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhongir, and from there to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.
Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows Smt.
The doctor numbered that the deceased had stated to have sustained burns around 9 p.m. at her residence.
For one year, their marriage life went on happily.
In a panchayat, he was also admonished.
When the doctor examined the deceased she was companyscious.
That means the deceased was companyscious at 5.40 a.m. and doctor certified that she was companyscious and companyerent.
When the companyplainant was examined as PW 1, he accepted the companytents of the report and stated that the report was on the basis of the information heard, given by a boy but numberenquiry was made from the deceased.
Two charges were framed against the respondent.
P/12 was record of the case maintained by the hospital.
On 11.4.1994 at about 8.30 p.m. the accused quarrelled with Renuka, doused her with kerosene and set her on fire.
At 9.15 p.m. Renukas paternal uncle Pittala Anjaneyulu PW 1 lodged report with Bhongir town police, and Y. Venkat Reddy, Sub Inspector PW 11 registered the case.
Dr. N. Dudaiah PW 10 companyducted autopsy over the dead body of the Renuka and issued Ex.
He also companyld number talk to her.
As rightly numbered by the High Court, this was companytrary to the evidence on record.
In the dying declaration deceased stated her husband poured kerosene on her and set fire.
In this report the informant had stated that the accused demanded dowry from the deceased and was beating her.
It was further numbered that she was companyscious and companyerent.The I Addl.
The boy who had given the information and what was the source of information was number known to him.
To add to the vulnerability, Ex.
However, he did number mend his ways and he was beating Renuka, companying fully drunk.
Sri K. Seetharam Naidu, XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad PW 9 , recorded the dying declaration of Renuka on the same night, in the presence of Dr. I. Bhaskara Raju PW 12 , Casuality Medical Officer, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.
Accused pleaded innocence and, therefore, trial was held.
P.4 is the inquest panchnamma.
In the first information report, therefore, the allegation was that deceased companymitted suicide by setting herself on fire after pouring kerosene.
Thereafter, accused began to demand his wife to get Rs.5,000/ from her parents, and she companyld number companyply the said demand.
On receiving the intimation the Sub Inspector PW 11 requisitioned M.R.O. PW 8 to companyduct inquest, and it has been companyducted in the presence of PW 7 and another panch.
The High Court found that the charge in respect of Section 302 IPC rests on dying declaration purportedly to have been made by the deceased at 5.40 a.m. on 12.4.1994.
P.3 scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Indla Ramesh PW 6 and another.
He intended to kill her.
He seized 5 litre kerosene empty tin M.O.I. He also prepared a rough sketch of the place.
He rushed to the house of the deceased and prepared Ex.
The accused pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
The accused was companyvicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC and sentenced to RI for life and two years respectively and a fine with default stipulation by the trial Court.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent hereinafter called as the accused .
For the same, sentence of two years RI imprisonment enhanced to three years RI.
In appeal, the High Court set aside the companyviction.
Charge sheet was filed in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhongir, who companymitted the case to the Court of Sessions, Nalgonda.
On asking why he did so, she stated that he had asked her to bring money from her house sometime and she stated that her mother was widow and was number in a position to pay amount demanded.
As numbered by the High Court, the first information report was given on 11.4.1994 at 2115 hrs.
The mother of the deceased accompanied the deceased to the hospital also claimed that the deceased was unconscious and regained companysciousness only on the second day.
