Back
1998 Supreme(AP) 933
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA, NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY
Surisetty Pitchaiah - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 12-23-98
Inconsistent dying declarations and doubtful or suspicious circumstantial evidence cannot support a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - DYING DECLARATION - INCONSISTENT DYING DECLARATIONS - ACCUSED ENTITLED TO ACQUITTAL - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - MUST BE FREE FROM DOUBTS, CLEAR, CLINCHING AND ACCEPTABLE - LINKS RELATING TO COMMISSION OF OFFENCE MUST FORMULATE A COMPLETE CHAIN - INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE SUGGEST INNOCENCE OF ACCUSED - CONVICTION CANNOT BE BASED ON DOUBTFUL OR SUSPICIOUS EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Husband accused of pouring kerosene on his wife and setting her on fire, resulting in her death. Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, including dying declarations and witness statements.
Finding of the Court:
Dying declarations were inconsistent and unreliable. Evidence was full of doubts and failed to establish the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence suggested both the involvement and innocence of the accused. Court concluded that the evidence suggested the innocence of the accused and ordered his acquittal.
Issues: 1. Whether the dying declarations were consistent and reliable. 2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Whether the accused was entitled to an acquittal based on the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Dying declarations are not consistent and reliable if they are at variance with each other on material particulars. 2. Circumstantial evidence must be free from doubts, clear, clinching, and acceptable. It must narrate all the links relating to the commission of the offense and formulate a complete chain of committing the offense. 3. Where the evidence is doubtful or suspicious in nature, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Accused ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
( 1 ) SOLE accused in SC No. 467 of 1989 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
( 2 ) THE substance of the charge against the accused is that on 25-3-1989 at about 10. 00 a. m. , he poured kerosene on Surisetti Jayamma and set her on fire and as a result she died at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddapah, on the same day at 2. 30 p. m.
( 3 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that the accused is the husband of the deceased (Jayamma ). The accused married the deceased 17 years back and she was living with the accused and that they did not have children. The accused for the past 3 or 4 years developed illicit intimacy with his neighbour Ramanamma, wife of Chinna Gurrappa of Mydukur and on that account, the accused was ill-treating the deceased. About two months back, prior to the occurrence, the accused beat the deceased and drove her away. PW1 (Penujuvvi Ramaiah) the father of the deceased sent her back to the accused along with his son PW2 (P. Venkata Subbaiah) and PW3 (K. Narasimha Reddy ). On 25-3-1989 at about 10. 00 a. m. the deceased and the accused were in the house, and the accused beat the deceased with hands and legs and snatched away her gold bangles, rings and then poured kerosene on her and set fire saying chave Lanja . The deceased ran into the street with flames. PW6 (M. Subbamma), fruit vendor caught hold of the deceased as she was falling and took her in a rickshaw to private nursing home of PW10 (Dr. C. N. Rangasimha), Medical Practitioner. On intimation from the said nursing home, PW9 (K. V. Subbaiah), Head Constable, went to the hospital and the deceased gave a complaint to him under Ex. P4 in the presence of PW10 and he certified that the deceased was conscious at the time of giving the complaint.
( 4 ) PW9 registered the complaint as Cr. No. 59 of 1989 under Sections 326 and 307 IPC. Later, the deceased was shifted to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddapah and admitted there at 2. 05 p. m. and on the same day, she expired at about 2. 30 p. m. On receipt of the death information, the police altered the Sections into 302 IPC in the FIR and the police held the inquest over the dead body in the Headquarters Hospital, Cuddapah on 26-3-1989. The panchayatdars to the inquest opined that the death was the result of hum injuries caused by the accused. The case was referred false by the investigating officer. However, the complainant i. e. , PW1 filed a complaint and the same was registered by the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate of Proddatur as CC No. 612 of 1989 and committed the same to the Sessions Court, Cuddapah, and the same has been registered as SC No. 467 of 1989.
( 5 ) THE Sessions Court framed a charge under Section 302 IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 11 and marked Exs. Pl to P8. PWs. l to 4 testified to the fact of earlier ill-treatment of the deceased by the accused. PW3 and PW4 are teacher and paternal uncle of the deceased respectively, PW5 (M. La/a Saheb) testified to the fact that he along with another took the deceased in a rickshaw to the hospital. PW7 (Syed Jaffar) who is RMP Doctor, testified to the fact that the deceased came out of the house with flames and PW6 took her to the private hospital. PWs. 5 and 8 were treated hostile by the Court at the request of the prosecution.
( 6 ) PW9, Head Constable and in-charge S. H. O of Mydukur Police Station went on 25-3-1989 at about 10. 00 a. m. to the nursing home on information by PW10 and found the deceased with burn injuries in conscious stage and he recorded her dying declaration under Ex. P4 at about 10. 15 a. m. which is attested by PW10 and on the basis of the same, he registered a case in Cr. No. 59 of 1989 and further recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr. PC under Ex. P6 in
