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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17800

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B V L N Chakravarthi, J
Dudekula Somaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of A P – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 678/2009



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D Purnachandra Reddy
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor

When multiple dying declarations are irreconcilable, the court must evaluate all evidence on record. If the earliest declaration, supported by other material evidence, is suppressed by the prosecution, secondary dying declarations cannot form the sole basis for a criminal conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 Part-II - Death in fire accident - Multiple dying declarations - Inconsistency - Requirement to examine totality of material - Conviction solely based on conflicting dying declarations without considering material inconsistencies is unsustainable.

(B) Evidence Actor, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying Declaration - When multiple dying declarations are repugnant to one another, the court is duty-bound to examine the remaining evidence to determine which declaration is reliable - Suppression of the first statement (accident register entry) by the prosecution renders subsequent dying declarations unreliable, especially when supported by neutral witnesses (child witness testimony) that corroborate the initial version of a fire accident.

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC for the death of his wife. The prosecution relied on dying declarations (Ex.P12 and Ex.P15) alleging the appellant instigated the suicide. However, the appellant contended that the first statement made to a doctor at the time of admission (Ex.P13) stated the death was due to a fire accident while sleeping, which was corroborated by the testimony of the deceased's son (PW-2).

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the prosecution suppressed the first dying declaration (Ex.P13). Given the inconsistency between the admissions and the later statements, and the un-impeached testimony of PW-2, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's failure to consider Ex.P13 and the evidence of PW-2 rendered the conviction erroneous.

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC is sustainable given the irreconcilable inconsistencies between multiple dying declarations and the corroborative evidence provided by the child witness.

Ratio Decidendi: When there are multiple irreconcilable dying declarations, the court must examine all materials on record. If the first statement is suppressed and contradicted by subsequent declarations, while the first statement is supported by other unchallenged evidence, the conviction cannot rely on the later declarations.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial court findings and history of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. contentions regarding admissibility of dying declarations and reliability of child witness. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. evaluation of multiple dying declarations and suppression of evidence. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. final acquittal and order to set aside lower court conviction. (Para 35 , 36)

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant/convict/accused challenging the Judgment dated 10.06.2009 delivered in S.C.No.535 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

2. The appellant/accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’). He was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned before the learned Sessions Court.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Smt.Dudekula Fathima (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased) is the wife of the accused. They are residents of B-Kodur Village. Their marriage was solemnized ten years ago. They were blessed with a male child (PW-2). Later, the accused addicted to alcohol started suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and harassing her. On 12.01.2007, at about 8:00 pm, the accused came to the house in intoxication. He abused the deceased. He beat her. He instigated her to commit suicide. The deceased poured kerosene on her body and searching for a match box. The accused picked up a match box and lit a matchstick. He set fire the deceased. She raised cries. Neighbours came there and shifted her to the Government Hospital at Nandyal.

5. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PW-15 of Bandiatmakur Police Station visited the Hospital at about 7:00 am on 13.01.2007, on the receipt of MLC intimation from the Hospital. He recorded the statement of the deceased in the presence of PW-13, Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Nandyal. He registered Ex.P15 as a case in Cr.No.07 of 2007 vide Ex.P16-FIR and submitted the same to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. He visited the Hospital again and examined PW-2 and PW-3. Later, proceeded to the scene of offence located at B-Kodur Village. Observed the same, in the presence of PW-9 and others prepared Ex.P8-Panchanama and Ex.P17-Rough Sketch. He examined and recorded statements of PWs-5, 6 and 10.

6. On 14.01.2007, he proceeded to the Government Hospital at Nandyal. He examined and recorded PWs-1, 4 and another. On 20.01.2007, he received an intimation from the Hospital about death of the deceased. Therefore, he took steps to alter the provisions relating to offence vide Ex.P18-Memo and submitted the same to the Magistrate. Later, handed over the investigation to Inspector of Police, PW-14.

7. The Inspector of Police, PW-14 verified the investigation made by the Sub-Inspector of Police. He visited Government Hospital at Nandyal examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and others. He took steps to conduct inquest over the dead body vide Ex.P14-Inquest Report. Later, PW-11 i.e. Civil Surgeon at Allagadda Government Hospital conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P10-Postmortem Report opining that the cause of death due to shock due to septicemia on account of the burn injuries. The Inspector of Police i.e., PW-16 who conducted further investigation in the case laid the charge sheet after conclusion of the investigation before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

8. The Magistrate registered the same, report filed by the Police as PRC No.77 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Cl

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