{"id":38,"date":"2025-06-08T20:44:37","date_gmt":"2025-06-08T15:14:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/1738-1999\/"},"modified":"2025-06-08T20:44:37","modified_gmt":"2025-06-08T15:14:37","slug":"1738-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/1738-1999\/","title":{"rendered":"PARAPALLI KUMAR vs STATE OF A.P"},"content":{"rendered":"

Andhra High Court
\n<\/strong>THE HONOURABLE SRI\u00a0 JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1738 of 1999\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

PARAPALLI KUMAR\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

STATE OF A.P. REP BY P.S. SAROORNAGAR\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nLATER TRANSFERRED TO P.S. L.B.NAGAR, R.R. DIST.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n

Counsel for the Appellant\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 : MR. KOWTURU VINAY KUMAR\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Counsel for the Respondent\u00a0 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

:JUDGMENT:\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 23-7-1999
\npassed in S.C.No.137 of 1997 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions
\nJudge, Rangareddy District at Saroornagar, whereby and where under the learned
\nAdditional District and Sessions Judge found A1-Parapalli Kumar guilty for the
\noffences under sections 304-B and 498A IPC and convicted him accordingly and
\nsentenced him to suffer RI for 8 years and pay a fine of Rs.500\/-, in default to
\nsuffer SI for three months for the offence under section 304B IPC and RI for one
\nyear and fine of Rs.500\/-, in default to suffer SI for 3 months for the offence
\nunder section 498A IPC.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The prosecution case, in brief, is:<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 A1 married Kavitha, daughter of P.W.1 and P.W.2, on 1.4.1994. A2-Suddala
\nRavi is brother-in-law of A1. After the marriage A1 started harassing his wife
\nKavita (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) on the ground of additional
\ndowry. It is alleged that he beat the deceased on the ground of her not
\nfulfilling his demands. On 28.8.94 at 1500 hours A1 returned home in an
\ninebriated mood and beat the deceased and also abused her for not getting his
\ndemands fulfilled. The deceased being not able to put up the physical and mental
\nharassment in the hands of A1 resorted to put an end to her life. At about 4
\nP.M. she poured kerosene on herself and lit fire. On hearing her cries
\nneighbours rushed to the scene and in the mean while, A1 woke up from sleep and
\nextinguished flames. The deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for
\ntreatment. On 29.8.94 P.W.9-Mohd.Saravarali Khan, Head Constable, Saroornagar\u00a0
\nP.S., Hyderabad on the instructions of Circle Inspector of Police (P.W.12)
\nproceeded to Osmania General Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased\u00a0
\nand handed over the same to Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station.
\nEx.P.4 is the statement of the deceased recorded by him. Basing on Ex.P.4
\nstatement, P.W.13-Y.Yadagiri, Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroornagar Police
\nStation registered a case in Cr.No.517 of 1994 under section 498A IPC and issued
\nEx.P.9-FIR. He also recorded the statement of the deceased under section 161 of
\nCr.P.C, which has been exhibited as Ex.P.11. A requisition was sent to the
\nMunsif Magistrate, Hyderabad (West and South) to record the dying declaration of
\nthe deceased. P.W.10-Ch.Kishore Kumar, Munsif Magistrate, Hyderabad (W & S)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nreceived Ex.P.5 requisition from the Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police
\nStation through P.C.799. He proceeded to Osmania General Hospital and recorded\u00a0
\nthe dying declaration of the deceased, which has been exhibited as Ex.P.6. The
\ndoctor who was present at the time of recording dying declaration of the
\ndeceased certified that the deponent was in a fit state of mind to give her
\nstatement. Ex.P.6 dying declaration contains the certificate issued by the duty
\nDoctor-Dr.D.Madhusudhan Rao. The deceased succumbed to the injuries while\u00a0\u00a0
\nundergoing treatment in Osmania General Hospital on 4.9.94 at 1 P.M. There upon,
\nEx.P.10, memo of alteration of section of law came to be filed in the court by
\nP.W.12-K.Jaganmohan Reddy, Inspector of Police, Saroornagar P.S. P.W.12\u00a0\u00a0
\nconducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.2 is the inquest
\nreport. After the inquest the dead body was subjected to post mortem
\nexamination. P.W.7 held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 5.9.94 and
\nissued Ex.P.3 post mortem report opining that the deceased died of burn
\ninjuries. After completing investigation, P.W.14-B.Janardhan Reddy laid a charge
\nsheet before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad (E & N),
\nHyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C.No.173
\nof 1994 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, R.R. District at
\nSaroornagar. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.No.137 of
\n1997 and made over the same to the II Additional Sessions Judge, R.R. District
\nat Saroornagar for disposal according to law. The learned II Additional Sessions
\nJudge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed charges under sections
\n304-B and 498A IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused, for which
\nthe accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt
\nof the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, prosecution
\nexamined 14 witnesses, proved 11 documents and marked four material objects. The\u00a0
\nlearned II Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on
\nrecord and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found A1 guilty for the
\noffences under sections 304-B and 498A IPC and convicted him accordingly and
\nsentenced him as stated supra. However, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge
\nfound A2 not guilty for the offences under sections 304-B and 498A IPC and
\nacquitted him accordingly. Hence, this Criminal Appeal by A1.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Heard learned counsel appearing for appellant\/A1 and Additional Public
\nProsecutor appearing for the State.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/A1 submits that P.Ws.1 to 3
\nare interested witnesses and therefore no implicit reliance can be placed on
\ntheir testimony. He further submits that Ex.P.4 statement and Ex.P.6 dying
\ndeclaration are not out of the free will of the deceased and they are the
\noutcome of tutoring of the deceased by her parents. A further submission has
\nbeen made that it is A1 who extinguished the flames of the deceased and
\ntherefore the conduct of the deceased soon after the occurrence speaks of his
\ninnocence of the offences with which he stood charged.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the dying declaration of
\nthe deceased which have been exhibited as Exs.P.4, P.6 and P.11 are consistent
\nto the fact that A1 harassed the deceased on the ground of additional dowry and
\nthe deceased being not able to put up the harassment resorted to setting fire to
\nherself and thus the conviction and sentence of A1 for the offences under
\nsections 304-B and 498A IPC is legal and proper and the same is not liable to be
\ninterfered with in this appeal.<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and proved 11 documents and\u00a0\u00a0
\nexhibited three material objects to bring home the guilt of the appellant\/A1 for
\nthe offences under sections 498a and 304 B IPC. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are parents,
\nP.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the neighbour to P.Ws.1 to 3.
\nP.W.5 is cousin of P.W.1. P.W.6 and P.W.8 are neighbours to the deceased. P.W.7\u00a0\u00a0
\nis the post mortem Dioctor. P.W.9 is the Head Constable who recorded the
\nstatement of the deceased, which has been exhibited as Ex.P.4.\u00a0 P.W.10 is the
\nMagistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. Ex.P.6 is the
\ndying declaration. P.W.11 is the panch witness for the scene of offence
\npanchanama. P.W.12 is the Inspector of Police, Saroornagar Police Station,
\nHyderabad who sent requisition to the Additional Judicial First Class
\nMagistrate, Hyderabad (W & S). Ex.P.5 is the requisition sent to the Magistrate
\nto record the dying declaration of the deceased. He filed Ex.P.10 memo of
\nalteration of section of law consequent on the receipt of intimation of the
\ndeath of the deceased.\u00a0 P.W.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroornagar,
\nHyderabad who received Ex.P.4 statement of the deceased and registered a case in
\nCr.No.517 of 1994 under section 498A IPC and issued Ex.P.9-FIR. He also recorded
\nthe statement of the deceased which has been marked as Ex.P.12. P.W.14 is the\u00a0
\nSub-Divisional Police Officer, Saroornagar who filed the charge sheet.<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The entire case rests on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and dying
\ndeclarations of the deceased, which have been exhibited as Exs.P.4, 6 and 11.
\nP.W.9 recorded Ex.P.4 statement of the deceased. P.W.10 recorded Ex.P.6 dying\u00a0\u00a0
\ndeclaration of the deceased. P.W.13 recorded Ex.P.11 statement of the deceased.
\nThere are three written dying declarations of the deceased apart from the oral
\ndying declarations of the deceased made to P.Ws.1 to 3. The text of the written
\ndying declarations of the deceased have been extracted by the trial court in its
\njudgment. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the trial court judgment reproduced the
\nrelevant portions of the dying declarations of the deceased.<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is well settled that as a matter of law, a dying declaration can be
\nacted upon without corroboration. See KUSHAL RAO V. STATE OF BOMBAY1, HARBAN\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nSINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB2, GOPAL SINGH V. STATE OF M.P.3. There is not even a\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nrule of prudence which has hardened into a rule of law that a dying declaration
\ncannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. The primary effort of the court
\nhas to be to find out whether the dying declaration is true. If it is so, no
\nquestion of corroboration arises. It is only if the circumstances surrounding
\nthe dying declaration are not clear of convincing, then the court may for its
\nassurance look for corroboration to the dying declaration.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In another decision in KANAKSINGH RAI SINGH RAV V. STATE OF GUJARAT4\u00a0 it\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nis held by the Supreme Court that the law is well settled and if a dying
\ndeclaration is made voluntarily and truthfully by a person who is physically in
\na condition to make such statement, there is no impediment in relying such a
\ndeclaration.
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\n10.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are:<\/p>\n

i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury and otherwise
\nthan under normal circumstances;
\nii) Such death should have been occurred within seven years of the marriage;
\niii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
\nrelative of her husband;
\niv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for
\ndowry.
\n11.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The deceased died of burn injuries within 7 years of the marriage. There
\nis no dispute with regard to the cause of death of the deceased.\u00a0 This fact has
\nbeen amply proved by the post mortem Doctor who has been examined as P.W.7. As a\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nmatter of fact the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries while undergoing
\ntreatment in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Therefore, prosecution has
\namply proved that the deceased died of burn injuries.<\/p>\n

12.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The dying declarations of the deceased are consistent to the fact that on
\nthe date of the incident A1 came in an inebriated mood and beat her on the
\nground of additional dowry and thereupon the deceased being not able to put up
\nwith the harassment resorted to put an end to herself by setting fire to
\nherself. The written dying declarations i.e Ex.P.4, P.6 and P.11 are fully
\ncorroborated by the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3. There is no material to
\nshow that the dying declarations were the result of product of imagination,
\ntutoring and prompting. On the contrary, the same appears to have been made by
\nthe deceased voluntarily. They are trustworthy and have credibility.<\/p>\n

13.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The trial court considered the evidence brought on record in right
\nperspective and found the appellant\/ A1 guilty for the offence under section
\n498A and 304-B IPC. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the
\nconviction of the appellant-A1 for the offences under sections 304-B and 498A of
\nIPC. However, keeping in view the age of the appellant\/A1 I am inclined to
\nreduce the sentence imposed from 8 years to 7 years. But for the reduction of
\nsentence of imprisonment from eight years to seven years, this Criminal Appeal
\nfails and the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n

1 1958 SCR 522\u00a0
\n2 1962 SUPP(1) SCR 104\u00a0\u00a0
\n3 AIR 1972 SC 1557\u00a0
\n4 (2003) 1 SCC 73<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Andhra High Court THE HONOURABLE SRI\u00a0 JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1738 of 1999\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 PARAPALLI KUMAR\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 STATE OF A.P. REP BY P.S. SAROORNAGAR\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 LATER TRANSFERRED…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[59,47557,47558,48,4551,12706,3994,15974,85,15542,15969,13409,15973,15970,15971,14203,15975,15972],"class_list":["post-38","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-docs","tag-docs1","tag-docs2","tag-dowry","tag-dying-declarations","tag-guilty","tag-harassment","tag-head-constable","tag-judgment","tag-law","tag-osmania-general-hospital","tag-prosecution","tag-ri","tag-saroornagar-police-station","tag-scr","tag-sessions-judge","tag-si","tag-station-house-officer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}