Yazali Venkataratnam vs State

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-12-1990 of the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur in S.C. No. 293 of 1990 convicting the sole accused for an offence punishable under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for life.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :-

The deceased was the daughter-in-law of the accused. She was married to the son of the accused one year prior to the date of occurrence. After her marriage, the deceased used to come to her parents often without the knowledge of her husband and her parents-in-law. This attitude and behaviour of the deceased was resented by her husband and parents-in-law. The parents of the deceased were also advising the deceased no to come to their house often without the knowledge of her parents-in-law. As the things stood thus, on 25-5-1989, the deceased left her house without informing her husband and parents-in-law and came to Valasamalapalle, the village of her parents. On that, some elders from Kothapalem, where the deceased was living along with her husband and parents-in-law, came to Valasamalapalle and all of them, including the parents of the deceased, took the deceased to Kothapalem and left her in the house of her parents-in-law. This behaviour of the deceased enraged the feelings of the accused, who was already annoyed over the conduct of the deceased and he was waiting for an opportunity to do away with the deceased.

On 26-8-1989 at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased was all alone in the house attending to some house-hold work near the kitchen. Her husband went to attend the calls of nature and the neighbours were away witnessing television programme. The accused took this opportunity and while abusing the deceased, threw gruel on the person of the deceased. Thereafter, the accused poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and set fire. Unable to bear the flames, the deceased ran into the street, raising screams. Thereupon, the neighbours gathered and put off the flames, took the deceased to a private hospital and on the advice of the compounder there, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Ponnur. On the intimation from the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Ponnur, the Munsif Magistrate, Ponnur proceeded to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. On the intimation from the Medical Officer, Ponnur and after obtaining the copy of the dying declaration, a case under S. 307, I.P.C. of Ponnur Rural Police Station was registered on 26-8-1989. As the condition of the deceased became serious, she was shifted to the General Hospital, Guntur, where she succumbed to injuries on 27-8-1989 at 1.30 a.m. On receipt of the death intimation from the Government General Hospital, Guntur, a case in Cr. No. 853/89 under S. 174, Cr.P.C. of Kothapet L.& O. Police Station was registered and the same was transferred to Ponnur Rural Police Station on the jurisdiction. On receipt of the copy of the said F.I.R. the case which was already registered in the Ponnur Rural Police Station was altered to one under S. 302, I.P.C.

The investigating officer visited the scene of offence on 27-8-1989 at about 7.00 a.m. and seized the articles and an observation report was drafted. After conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, the body was sent for post-mortem examination. The accused was arrested on 9-9-1989. After the completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

The prosecution, in all, examined P.Ws. 1 to 18 marked Exs. P. 1 to 16 and produced M.Os. 1 to 4. The plea of the accused is one of total denial.

The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the dying declaration of the deceased Ex. P. 3 recorded by P.W. 4, the Munsif Magistrate, found the accused guilty and convicted her for an offence punishable u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased. Thought he has stated that on enquiries from his daughter (the deceased), he learnt that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire, he did not support the case of the prosecution. In the evidence he stated that the deceased informed him that she herself poured kerosene on her body and lit fire to herself.

P.W. 2, who is the husband of the accused deposed that at the time of the incident, he went to attend nature calls and that the deceased gave a statement to the Government doctor that she herself poured kerosene on her body and lit fire. He is an interested witness, being the husband of the accused, and his testimony cannot be believed. Admittedly, there is no direct eyewitness to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution mainly rested on the dying declaration, Ex. P. 3 given by the deceased to P.W. 4, the Munsif Magistrate, Ponnur. The learned Sessions Judge, in convicting the accused, has also relied upon the dying declaration. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration in this criminal appeal is :

"Whether the dying declaration Ex. P. 3 made before the competent Magistrate, P.W. 4, can relied upon for convicting the accused ?"

The dying declaration of the deceased Ex. P. 3 reads thus :

"My mother-in-law said something. She poured gruel (Ganji) on me at 8.00 p.m. behind me and my mother-in-law poured kerosene on me and set fire. Mother of my mother-in-law was separating the small stones from the rice at that time. My husband went to pull rickshaw at that time".

On a reading of the above dying declaration made by the deceased, we do not find any infirmity in the same so as to make it unreliable with regard to the complicity of the accused in the crime. The learned counsel for the accused in the crime. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there was a gap of two hours from the time when the deceased was admitted in the hospital to the time when the dying declaration was recorded by the Munsif Magistrate, P.W. 4, and the said time might have been used by the parents of the deceased for tutoring her to implicate the accused in the crime. We are unable to agree with the argument of the learned counsel. If really the deceased was tutored to implicate the accused, nothing prevented the deceased from implicating some others also including her father-in-law and husband, with whom, she was alleged to have not on good terms. Moreover, the statement made by the deceased in her dying declaration, Ex. P. 3 corroborates the statement given by her to P.W. 15, who recorded the same in Ex. P. 11, Accident Register. No amount of interestedness can be attributed to P.W. 15 in recording the said statement. Similarly, P.W. 4, the Munsif Magistrate, cannot be attributed with any motives for recording a false dying declaration. Both P.Ws. 4 and 15 are official witness and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. Merely because P.Ws. 1 and 2, the father and father-in-law of the deceased respectively, did not support the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the version given by P.Ws. 4 and 15 is not truthful. In the instant case, the offence is alleged to have taken place at 7.30 p.m. Within a span of one and half hour, the deceased was shifted to the hospital where she had made a statement before P.W. 15, which was recorded in Ex. P. 11. Accident Register. P.W. 4 the Munsif Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at about 10.40 p.m. It is, therefore, seen that the time lag is also not much to entertain any doubt with regard to the tutoring of the deceased. It is in the evidence of P.W. 15 that some people were visiting the hospital and talking to the deceased. But it is to be noted that it is not a case where the deceased was brought from her parents'' house. On the other hand, it is a case where the deceased was brought from her parents-in-law''s house. Therefore, it cannot be said that her parents alone were present near her and that they tutored her to implicate the accused in the crime. It is significant to note that P.W. 1, the father of the deceased, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. If really he has tutored the deceased, he would not have turned hostile and, in fact, he would have supported the case of the prosecution to see that the accused is punished. The fact that the deceased mentioned the name of her mother-in-law only in dying declaration as the person who has poured kerosene and set fire to her excluding her husband and father-in-law points to the truthful nature of the dying declaration, uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations. This is a case where the mother-in-law, finding her daughter-in-law in a lonely and helpless condition, poured gruel and kerosene on her and set fire causing her death.

We have carefully scrutinised the dying declaration of the deceased and the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge in accepting the testimony of P.W. 15 and convicting the accused and we find that the trial Court has perfectly assessed the evidence of P.W. 15, who is an independent official witness, and has rightly relied upon the dying declaration Ex. P. 3 in convicting the accused which do not call for any interference.

The criminal appeal is, therefore, dismissed confirming the judgment dated 12-12-1990 of the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur in S.C. No. 293 of 1990.

Appeal dismissed.