Back
When the First Whisper Reveals the Truth: AP High Court Overturns Conviction in Tragic Burning Case
The has acquitted a husband convicted of culpable homicide after meticulously unraveling a web of inconsistent dying declarations, holding that the prosecution had deliberately suppressed the victim's earliest account of an accidental fire.
Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi allowed the criminal appeal filed by Dudekula Somaiah, setting aside his 2009 conviction under and the ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed by the .
The Fatal Night and Shifting Narratives
On 12 January 2007, Dudekula Fathima suffered severe burn injuries in her home in B-Kodur village. She was rushed to the Government Hospital at Nandyal, where she later succumbed to septicemia on 20 January. The prosecution's case hinged on her alleged statements that her husband, in a drunken state, had instigated her to commit suicide and then lit a matchstick to set her ablaze after she poured kerosene on herself.
Yet the trial court record revealed a crucial omission. When duty doctor PW-12 was cross-examined, he disclosed an entry in the accident register made at the time of admission. According to that contemporaneous note, Fathima had stated she sustained injuries while sleeping in the hut when it caught fire around 8 pm.
This first account, recorded when the victim remained conscious and coherent, stood in stark contrast to the two subsequent dying declarations—one supposedly recorded by a Judicial Magistrate and another by the Sub-Inspector of Police.
A Child's Unshaken Testimony and Medical Silence
The accused's nine-year-old son (PW-2) provided powerful corroboration. He testified that the thatched house caught fire while the family slept, and his mother pushed him and his sister to safety before she herself was engulfed in flames. The prosecution never declared him hostile or confronted him with any prior statement.
Further undermining the prosecution theory, the autopsy surgeon (PW-11) found no kerosene odor on the body, and the other two doctors remained silent on any such smell. These scientific gaps aligned perfectly with an accidental fire rather than deliberate ignition.
Why Courts Must Confront Multiple Declarations
Justice Chakravarthi emphasized the legal duty when faced with irreconcilable statements:
"In the case of third category of cases is that where there are more than one dying declaration and inconsistencies between the declarations are absolute and the dying declarations are irreconcilable being repugnant to one another. The duty of the Court is to examine the rest of the materials in the form of evidence placed before the court and still conclude that the incriminatory dying declaration is capable of being relied upon."
The first dying declaration, supported by the child's evidence and medical findings, emerged as the version compatible with reality. The later statements, which prosecutors had highlighted while burying the admission register entry, could not be safely acted upon.
The Judgment's Final Word
Allowing the appeal, the Court declared:
"In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 10.06.2009 rendered in S.C.No.535 of 2008 on the file of III Addl.Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The accused acquitted for the offence "
The ruling serves as a stark reminder that investigative agencies cannot cherry-pick dying declarations. When a victim's earliest words point to tragedy rather than crime, and independent evidence supports that account, courts must heed that truth.
The fine amount, if paid, stands ordered to be refunded, and all bail bonds stand cancelled.
