M.S.K.JAISWAL, J. - (1.) THE appellant was tried in S.C.No.858 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur for the charge that he killed Sumangalamma (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.,. Through Judgment, dated 23 -09 -2009, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/ -. The same is challenged by the accused in this appeal.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are as under: - The accused and the deceased are the residents of Madhudi village, Agali Mandal, Anantapur District. The husband of the deceased Bojappa died long ago. She had a daughter Sreelakshmi (P.W.6). The accused developed illicit intimacy with the deceased and they were living together. The daughter P.W.6 of the deceased was living with Nagappa P.W.7 and Jayamma P.W.8, who are her paternal uncle and aunt. T.Govindappa P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. Girjamma, Eswarappa and Gangamma PWs.2, 3 and 4 are the neighbouring residents of the house where the deceased and accused were living whereas Dasappagari Sreenivasulu P.W.5 was residing at some distance. It is alleged that on 09.08.2008 at about 10.00 p.m., the deceased asked the accused about the expenditure of Rs.1,000/ -, which was given to him by her, but the accused did not respond. The deceased is said to have asked the accused not to come to her house and upon that the accused got wild and by suspecting her fidelity, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The deceased came out of the house and fell down on the street. The neighbours PWs.2, 3 and 4 are said to have come and that the deceased informed them that the accused has set fire to her in order to kill her. The deceased was shifted to the house of PWs.7 and 8, where her daughter P.W.6 was living. P.W.5 informed about the incident in the next morning to the brother of the deceased P.W.1, who came there. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Madakasira on 10 -08 -2008. On the information reaching the police through the hospital, the S.I. of Police, Agali P.W.14 went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim. On its basis, Cr.No.19 of 2008 was registered under Section 307 of I.P.C. P.W.14 visited the scene of offence and observed the same under a panchanama. Material objects were seized. In view of the health condition of the deceased, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Hindupur. The jurisdictional Magistrate Sri Ramanaiah P.W.13 visited the hospital and recorded her statement. On 14 -08 -2008 at about 03.15 a.m., the deceased succumbed to the burns. In view of the same, the provision of law was altered from Section 307 of I.P.C., to Section 302 of I.P.C. P.W.15 the Inspector of Police, Madakasira, took up the investigation, held inquest over the dead body which was also subjected to post - mortem examination and after completing the investigation, he filed charge -sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira. The same was taken cognizance of, as P.R.C.No.24 of 2008 and after complying with the mandatory requirements, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Anantapur. PWs.1 to 16 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and M.Os.1 to 8 were filed on behalf of the prosecution. The contradictory portions in the statements of PWs. 1, 5 and 7 were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.5 on behalf of the accused. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating evidence adduced against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated. The result in the Sessions Case is mentioned at the threshold. Learned Counsel for the accused submits that the trial Court erred in relying upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which is full of inconsistencies and discrepancies. It is contended that the evidence of the material witnesses is completely at variance with the case of the prosecution. As regards the two Dying Declarations recorded from the victim, one by the Police Officer and another by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, it is argued that they are contradictory and still were relied upon by the trial Court. It is further submitted that the deceased was tutored by the people, who are inimical to the accused and this aspect is evident from the fact that her statements were recorded long after the alleged incident. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned Judgment is not based on proper appreciation of the material evidence on record and the same is liable to be set aside.
(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor submits that even though the independent neighbouring residents turned hostile, the two Dying Declarations of the deceased are consistent insofar as the material aspects are concerned, and that by itself is sufficient for holding the appellant -accused guilty of the charge. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence on record has been properly appreciated and the Judgment is based upon legally admissible evidence, warranting no interference.;