Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12170

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, JJ
Kadugudu Jayawanth – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.757 OF 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Phanindra Bhargav
For the Respondents: Syed Yasar Mamoon

A dying declaration is substantive evidence that can solely support a conviction if the court is satisfied it was made voluntarily, truthfully, and while the declarant was in a fit mental state. Corroboration and medical certification of fitness are rules of prudence, not absolute requirements of law.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 307 - Murder - Conviction based on dying declaration - Dying declaration as substantive evidence - Admissibility and evidentiary value. (Paras 15, 44, 46)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Evaluation of evidence - Credibility of witnesses - When dying declaration is found to be true and voluntary, it can form the sole basis for conviction - Medical certification of fitness is a rule of caution but not an absolute requirement if the recording authority is satisfied of the declarants mental state. (Paras 46, 47, 49)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Hostile witnesses - A witness turning hostile does not automatically render the entire prosecution case unreliable - Court may rely on portions of testimony corroborated by other evidence. (Paras 36, 37, 39)

Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for the murder of his partner. Prosecution alleged that after a period of cohabitation, the deceased expressed an intention to return to her spouse, which angered the accused. The accused poured kerosene on the victim and set her ablaze. The victim later succumbed to her burn injuries. The trial court convicted the accused based on the dying declaration and corroborative testimonies of neighbors and the victim's family members, leading to the present appeal.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the dying declaration, recorded by a Magistrate, was consistent, voluntary, and credible. The minor discrepancies regarding the accused's name and the lack of specific medical certification for mental fitness did not invalidate the declaration, as the Magistrate was satisfied with the victim's state of mind.

Issues: Whether the conviction is sustainable when based primarily on a dying declaration and circumstantial evidence, and whether discrepancies in the victim's statement regarding the identity of the assailant warrant interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A dying declaration remains a substantive piece of evidence and can form the sole basis of a conviction, provided the court is satisfied that the statement is voluntary, true, and not a product of prompting or imagination. The absence of specific corroboration or absolute medical certification does not vitiate the declaration if the surrounding evidence and the recording authority's satisfaction indicate the mental fitness of the declarant.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history and factual prosecution case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. core contentions by the appellant and respondent regarding circumstantial evidence and motive. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
3. evaluation of testimonial evidence, witness credibility, and medical findings. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. assessment of the investigative process and evidentiary value of witness testimony. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
5. legal sufficiency and admissibility of the dying declaration as substantive evidence for conviction. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)

This Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. M. Phanindra Bhargav, learned counsel for appellant - accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 28.04.2016 in S.C. No.760 of 2013 passed by learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year.

4. The case of the prosecution is as under:

i) The appellant - accused - Kandugudu Jayavanth @ Raju @ Jayappa hails from Kanapur Village, Aurad Mandal, Bidar District of Karnataka State. His marriage was performed with one Kodar Sunitha of Vadagam Village of Karnataka State about 10 years back. They have two (02) children. Since his earnings at native place was insufficient, he migrated to Hyderabad and working as Hamali in Kothapet Fruit Market by leaving his wife and two children at his native place.

ii) While working as labourer in Fruit Market, Kothapet, he came into contact with one Muthyala Laxmi (LW.5) about six (06) years ago who is having two children and she is a widow. Therefore, he started extra marital relation with LW.5.

iii) Again about six (06) months prior to the incident, the accused again came into contact with Manne Andalu (deceased herein) at Fruit Market, Kothapet and started leading extra marital life with the deceased also by taking a room on rent adjacent to the room of LW.5 and kept her in that room and was living with her.

iv) Having come to know about illegal intimacy of the accused with deceased, LW.5 started quarrelling with both of them. Thereafter, on coming to know about illegal intimacy of deceased with accused, PW.4, the husband of the deceased - Manne Anjaneyulu also deserted his wife (deceased) and was staying at his native village - Gungal, with their two children.

v) Both LW.5 and the deceased were quarrelling more often. The accused shifted his residence from Bandlaguda to H.No.11-21-1069, Phase-I, NTR Nagar, L.B. Nagar about one week prior to the incident and was staying with the deceased.

vi) The accused used to beat the deceased regularly in drunken state and was abusing her in most filthy language, for which the deceased having disgusted with the attitude of the accused told him that she would go to her husband if he beats her and abuses her regularly. On that, the accused decided to do away the deceased and get rid of her forever.

vii) Accordingly, on 13.01.2013 at about 16:30 hours, the accused came to his house at NTR Nagar from his labour work and abused the deceased as usual and quarreled with her, for which she told him that she would join her husband if he behaves like that. Upon which, the accused got enraged and decided to kill her. Therefore, with an intention to kill her, he poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze with a burning match stick, due to which, she received severe burn injuries, flames raised, she tried to come out of the house by rai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12170

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADK. Lakshman, B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, JJKadugudu Jayawanth – AppellantVersusState of Telangana – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL No.757 OF 2017

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, JJ
Kadugudu Jayawanth – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.757 OF 2017