CRLA/548/2017 of BONDALI BALAIAH , BALARAJU, HYD., Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP PP., on 31 December 2024

Bail Slip: _The App_ellant / Accused was directed to be released on bail by theorder of the High Court dated 02-01-2023 in l.A.No. 1 of 2022 in Crl.A.No: 548 of2017.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

AndTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:548 OF 2017

Crl. Appeal Under Section 314l2l ot Crl.p.C. aggrieved by the Judgmentdated 08-03-2017 in S.c.No. 362 of 2016 on the fire of the court or tneMetropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad Between:

Bondali Balaiah @ Balaraju S/o. 8.Narsimha, aged about 45 years, Occ. Worker atPapad new royal traders. Near Tirumala Plastic covers, Fish-Market Bequmbazar,Hyderabad, R/o H.No 14-8-417115121, 1'r, floor Near Uppatamma Teriple, OeviNagar, Jumeralh bazaar, Hyderabad. presenfly he ii'at Central prison [-at]Nagar, Jumeralh bazaar, Hyderabad. presenfly he ii'at Central prison [-at]Chenchelguda, Hyderabad, C.T No, 9564...APPELLANT/ Accused

AND

State of Telangana, rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

, ..RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. M. K. RATNAM

Counsel for the Respondent: THE ADDITIONAL pUBLIC PROSECUTORThe Court delivered the following Judgment:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [K.SURENDER]ANDTHE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL [KUMAR]

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.548 [OF ][2Ol7]

JUDGMENT; [(per ]IIon'blc [Sri ]Justice [K.Strender)]

This appeal is hled by appellant/$ole [accused,]aggrieved by the judgment, dated 08.03.20 17, passed inS.C.No.362 of 2016 on the file of Metropolitan [Sessi0ns]Judge, Flyderabad, convicting him for the offencepunishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code [(for]short'lPC').

2. Heard learned counsel for the appbllant ahd learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for responden t-State,

3. The appellant was convicted for cornmitting mufder [,bf]his 2"d wifc and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

4. On 27.O4.2Oi6, at 3:30 p.m,, thb appellant and thedeceased quarreled u,ith each other. The appellant becameviolent and poured kerosene on the deceased/ Ushammaand lit fire to her with a matchstict<. The [appellant]immediately poured water on her and [put ][off ][the ][flames]and took her to Osmania [General ][Hospital. ][The ][Sub]

KS. J & JAK.JCd A.No 546 of20l7a-l

Inspector of police visite d the hospital and then gave arequisition to the Judicial Magistrate to record the DyingDeclarationDeclaration

5. On the same d.y at9:2O p.m., the JudicialMagistrate/pW6 recordedthe Dying Declaration.Preliminary questions were put to the deceased and priorto that duty doctor endorsed that -patient is conscious,coherent and in a fit state of mind to give statement,,. Tothe 8th question posed by learned Magistrate, the deceasedstated as follows:

"My husband name is Ba_laraj. I am his 2nd wife. Iwas married 3 years ago. He stated that he walts to livealong with l"t wife and for the said *;;;;-;;;"one week there were fights in between ,r". f tfr.".tJrrlathat I wou-ld lodge a complaint. Then in in" around_ 4:oo p.m., he poured kerosene on me """","? ",frre with a matchstick. He "rj-".,immediately Oorr."J *^a-..and brought me to the hospital."

6After recording the Dying Declaration, the duty doctoragann endorsed that while recording the statement theagann endorsed that while recording the statement thedeceased was in a fit state of mind and conscious.

7Learned counsel for the appellant submits that evenaccording to the Dying Declaration, there were fightsamongst them for the past one week and enraged by the fight, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased andlit fire to hr-'r. However, the appellant immerliately took herto the hospital a[ter extinguishing flames. ln the saidcircumstances. the offence may fall under Ser:tion 30zl II ofIPC but not Lrnder Section 302 of IpC.

B. There is sullstance in the argumen t of learnedcounsel for the appellant. Exception 4 of Section 300 of IpCstates th.it Culpable homicide is not mur-der if it iscommitted in spur of a moment or \vithout anvpremeditation in a sr-rdden fight.

9. Even according to the appellant they rvere lightingcontinuousl,r, for the past one r.l,eek, since tlte appellantr'l'anted to stay r.l ith his 1sr qrife. The deceased threatenecl tofile a complaint against the appellant. On accoLrr-rt ofongoing fights in betrveen them for the past o,e rr'eek, onthc date of incident, it is evident that the appellant u,asangry and cnraged by the fights, the appellant pouredkerosene on cleceasecl and lit her on fire r,r,ith a matchstick.Hou,ever, tht: appellant immediately took the rleceased tothe hospital zifter extinguishing the flames.

10. ln the saicl circumstances, exception 4 of Section 300ol IPC has to be relied on. It cannot be said in the present I/

facts that the appellant had any premeditation andcommitted murder of the deceased. The conviction underSection 3O2 ol IPC is hereby set aside. However, theappellant is convicted for the offence under Section 3o4-llof IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years of imprisonment.

11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Sincethe appellant is on bail, the trial Court shall cause hisappearance and send him to jail to serve out remainingpart of the sentence Sd/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMAJOINT REGISTRARECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To

1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. ( with records) ( BySpecial Messenger)Special Messenger)

2. The XVI Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. The Station House Officer, Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad.4. The Supgrintendent, Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad ( BySpecial Messenger)4. The Supgrintendent, Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad ( BySpecial Messenger)

5. Two CCS to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana atHyderabad.Hyderabad.

6. One CC to Sri M. K. RATNAM, Advocate IOPUCI

7. Two CD Copies

Kul/,

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 t12t2024