JUDGEMENT
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. -
(1.)The present criminal appeal is arising out of a judgment dated 10.01.2011 in S.C.No.282 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. The appellant/accused has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 with a default clause to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC. He has also been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.100.00 with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC.
(2.)The prosecution case, in short, is that the marriage of the appellant/accused with the deceased Saritha took place on 08.06.2007 as per Hindu customs and rights. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave Rs.30,000.00 , six tulas of gold ornaments and household articles towards dowry and also promised to pay a sum of Rs.20,000.00 after some time. The appellant/accused was working as an auto rickshaw driver and on 30.12.2007, he came back to his house and while his wife was in the bathroom, he poured kerosene upon her and lit fire with an intention to kill her. She came running out of the house and P.W.3 - Mandala Anjamma, P.W.4 - Borra Janardhan, and P.W.5 - Mandala Jangaiah, came out from their houses and extinguished the flames. The deceased was taken to Osmania General Hospital and she expired on 02.01.2008 at about 8.30 pm. A crime was registered as FIR No.172 of 2007 dated 31.12.2007. The police, after investigating the crime, filed a charge sheet for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and the learned Magistrate took cognizance in PRC No.17 of 2008. Thereafter, the matter was committed for trial and the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty.
(3.)The prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses besides marking 17 documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P17 and two material objects i.e., M.O.1 and M.O.2.
Before the trial Court, P.W.1 - Kondey Kamalamma, the mother of the deceased, stated that the deceased was her fourth daughter and the marriage of the deceased took place about two and half years back, the deceased and the appellant/accused were living happily and the deceased died because of burn injuries. P.W.1 - Kondey Kamalamma, has not supported the prosecution. P.W.2 - Kondey Swamy, the father of the deceased, also stated on the same lines and has not supported the prosecution. P.W.3 - Mandala Anjamma, and P.W.4 - Borra Janardhan, who are neighbours of the appellant/accused have stated that they took the deceased to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and again they also did not support the prosecution story and they turned hostile. P.W.5 - Mandala Jangaiah and P.W.6 - Bungani Jangaiah, who were circumstantial witnesses to the incident, also did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.7 - Aluvula Narsimha, and P.W.8 - Pilli Balraj, who were present at the time of preparation of scene observation report (Ex.P.7), rough sketch (Ex.P.8) and seizure of empty kerosene tin of 5 litre capacity (M.O.1) and burnt cloth piece of the deceased (M.O.2), have identified their signatures on Exs.P.7 and P.8. P.W.9 - Mogila Pushpa, who was present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to burn injuries. P.W.11 - Mohd.Ashfaq Ali, the Incharge Tahsildar of Maheswaram Mandal, has stated before the trial Court that on 03.01.2008 he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on the requisition of the police in the presence of P.W.9. P.W.10 - Alwala Prabhakar, panch witness in whose presence the appellant/accused has made a confessional statement, did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.12 - Dr. Ravinder Goud, has conducted the autopsy over the dead body and he has opined that the deceased died on account of burns.