SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(AP) 943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K SURESH REDDY, A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, JJ.
Gogula Venkatesh, OCC - Coolie, R/o Opp Nagur Petrol Bunk - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent 
Criminal Appeal No. 2563 of 2018
Decided On : 09-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A Gayatri Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)

When multiple dying declarations contain material inconsistencies regarding the cause of death, especially where the earliest version recorded by a Magistrate suggests suicide, the prosecution must prove homicidal intent beyond reasonable doubt; failing which, and in the absence of a charge for abetment, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 498-A - Death in matrimonial home - Dying declarations with material inconsistencies - Higher-ranking officer's record (Magistrate) reliability - Absence of charge under Section 306 IPC - Burden of proof in circumstantial evidence cases - Principle of reasonable doubt. (Paras 21-23, 30, 31, 36)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was the husband of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed cruelty under S.498-A and murder under S.302 by burning his wife. The Trial Court acquitted him under S.498-A but convicted him under S.302 based on dying declarations. The appellant challenged the conviction citing inconsistencies in the dying declarations and claiming the death was suicidal.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the earliest dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate stated the deceased set herself on fire, contradicting subsequent police-recorded statements. Given the lack of a charge under S.306 IPC and the inconsistency in evidence, the prosecution failed to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt for murder under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt given the conflicting dying declarations and the absence of a charge for abetment of suicide.

Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple dying declarations exist with material inconsistencies, the declaration recorded by a Magistrate is more reliable. In the absence of a charge for abetment (S.306), the accused cannot be held liable for suicide when the prosecution fails to establish a homicidal intent.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside.

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sharma)

Introductory:-

[i] Sole accused in Sessions Case No.340 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Anantapuramu, (for short referred as ‘the Sessions Court’) is the appellant.

[ii] He was tried by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Anantapuram for the charges under Sections 498-A IPC and 302 IPC.

2. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Nallamada Circle filed Charge Sheet against the appellant/accused, alleging commission of offences under Sections 498-A on the ground of subjecting his wife to physical and mental cruelty, and under Section 302 IPC for causing death of his wife by pouring kerosene and setting fire.

3. The Sessions Court found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 302-IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default to pay fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and acquitted him for the charge under Section 498-A IPC under the judgment dated 01.03.2017. Questioning the propriety and sustainability of the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed. Case of the prosecution:-

4. [i] PW1-D.Lakshmi Devi, PW.6-D.Shankar are the parents of one G.Nagendramma (herein after referred to 'as the deceased'). The accused is the husband of the deceased.

[ii] During their wedlock, the accused and the deceased were blessed with a son by name Mohan. Accused addicted to alcohol etc., and used to harass the deceased physically and mentally, on that count the deceased came to her parental home along with her son. But four days prior to the incident, accused asked the deceased to come to home stating that if she does not come, he will commit suicide. Then, PW.1 and PW.6 taken the deceased to the house of the accused and left her there, asking the accused to take care of her.

[iii] On 07.05.2014 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused consumed alcohol and beat the deceased indiscriminately, when she tried to come out of the house of the accused, he caught hold of the deceased, poured kerosene on her body and set ablaze. On hearing cries, PW.2 and others came there, then the accused poured water on the deceased and put off the flames. Son of the deceased was also stained with kerosene but he has escaped from the house.

[iv] The deceased was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Kadiri in 108 ambulance van as the condition was critical. PW.9-Doctor, sent medical intimation to the local Magistrate, immediately.

[v] PW.11- The Judicial First Class Magistrate came to the Hospital, recorded the statement of the victim/injured, marked as Ex.P15 and obtained Ex.P8 and P9-Certificates from the Doctor as to the mental condition of the patient.

[vi] On receipt of medico legal information, on 07.05.2014 mid night PW.12 recorded the statement of injured/deceased vide Ex.P11. He has obtained the endorsement of Doctor as to coherent condition of the victim injured. Ex.P16 is the endorsement of the duty doctor.

[vii] On the strength of Ex.P11-statement of the victim, PW.10 registered FIR in Crime No.125 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC vide Ex.P12, and he came to know that the victim /injured was shifted to Ruya Hospital, Tirupati. He went there and recorded her statement under Ex.P13. Thereafter, PW.10 has visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P14.

[viii] The deceased died on 12.5.2014 while she was bringing back to the village, when the Doctors declared that her survival is difficult. The corpse was brought to the Government Hospital, Kadiri. The matter was informed to Police. PW.1 submitted Ex.P1- report. On the strength of the same, the section of law was altered to Section 498-A, 302 IPC by PW13 and the altered FIR is Ex.P17.

[ix] Further investigation is done by PW14. He has secured the inquest Panchayatdars – PW3, PW4, PW5 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Gove

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top