The High Court · 2025

Judgment

/1 THE HONOURABLE THE HONOURAB". S K.SURENDER rRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR ".HiO'TICE JUDGMENT: l. This ap .247 OF 2017

CRIMI ALN APPEAL No (per Hon'bte Sri Justice K.surentter) peal is filed by the appellant/accused gment dated 3O.Ot.2Ot7 in b-r, the Jud aggrieved S.C.No.24 of 2012 passed by the XIi Additional District and Session s Juclge, Vikarabad Ranga Reddy, convicting the appellant/accuseri for the offence under Section 302 of IpC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonmen '2. Heard learnecl cor Arun Kumar, learned o"t"' on behalf of r."o""0"",-::"t*."ai for the appellant' and Mr' Dodla Public Prosecutor appearing t The appellant was convicted for

3. committing the murder of the deceased fier and setting her on lire. The 10 03.2011. the offence of by pouring kerosene rncident happened on

4. Briefly, the backl (Kandaneuy Sukkamm Narsimuru) are from ,,u' Mandar, ourrf" deceased was performe3a peddemul und of the case is that the deceasecr *o the accused (Vadla (Q) Begari village' i e', indur viliage of "*t Reddy District rhe n I with one Anthappa;":;::;:.:" \ 2 ago. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two female children and one male child. About 10 years back, the husband of the deceased died. Thereafter, the deceased got acquaintance with the accused. Since then, the accused used to visit the house of the deceased. The deceased performed the marriage of her elder dapghter, Renuka (LW.6), with one Devender about one year back. Her second daughter, Mallamma, aged about 17 years, and son Chintu, aged i 3 years, were staying with her.

5. On 10.03.201t, around 04:O0 A.M., the accused went to the house of the deceased and there was an altercation regarding money, pursuant to which the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire.

6. All the witnesses, PWs.1 to 10, in the present case, who are the parents, relatives, and the son ol the deceased, have I turned hostile to the prosecution case. The entire case rests on the two dying declarations made by the deceased' The hrst statement by the deceased regarding her death was recorded by PW13 on 1O.03.2011 at 06:OO P.M. The deceased stated to PW13 as follows: "l u.nuld like to state that mA name is KandanelLy Sukkammo, unfe of late Anthappa, aged 40 years l leod out mg liuelihood bg doing labour ttlork and liuing in the uillage' I a \ i I l ^acq "n.a-ot' J"o1ri",:-'so'. ^"", X' i',) t s haue three children .t da.ushter o;;;;;;,:-:^!7"9nt"u and one tt o.""iaJr"Zfton M' "ld"' vl.ttage. Mg other oou.,loA-d \ n t : u. t 3 s e ars orjtte^r M1!ta-m;-r.',' i".iJ,"tzif x5" :z; Anrhappo aiZa"'i o"'1.^:: liuing tuith ;e. Mu husbanct vadla Narsitnutu. son of Radeppa I re q u e'n t r t t "". u ain t ed ut i t h m e o, d- |,,n ;:; o i'" ,ns s.oo;) 'i":;o ,:7":-:i,-,!"- ""j! acquarntance, t !ra,", ' :? : x.;.,,, il : ; ; i,I : T:,:,f ,:.; ii' "" "i ! i ni f,.: : ::. x ", :# :; '- * I.qrseu' Aqatn on 10.O3.2O] t, [1"-"q,O'1 OO A.M.. he, h?!t and asked fc He *" 1'0o0/- 'uo''t'a'!^!t Lt.rn tne t rotd that n. J3\.*.n".a,"oioi'i'iol:' n,ri 'n".s,'oo'uu,l and fought ,nct t u)os not incline, ,^'1,:o, |",,::,::#^ii::":i!'i:'ii:Wi:o!r:xr;:'it:!:l attd went me and ser fire. rnr" i, :' il'!1'" a x o " R e ce i u e d Basecl on the abot ,, *. ,i)iil ,T;!;;,;i;trZ::; !.:,:;.!;W,aocase uide ",,:,;, ;;::; ;: ::,",;'; i; :n"'' k",o'"Jn;'"r",;: , 'said tn't n) ^?,"?!-t.o'" s,p ps p.aaoiXfr)

7. A requisition ,"i,a *'u"" to the Magistrate to record the dying declaration of ,rtt te deceased. pW I I , who is rhe Judicial Magistrate, went to the hospital ald examined the deceased. Priol to that, r he d u[, doctor endorsed that the pertient was conscious, coherent, and fit to give the declarati6n. Having asked the preliminarv questions to satisfy himsejf about the answers, pWl l then put the questions as follows: ;oi'.Yl;j;":,ur name? fr^I,]i: is yuur husband,s namea .r. AnanthapD;, Q3: What is y,rur ase? - h" 4 A: 40 years Q4: Are you married? A: Married Q5: Are you iiterate? A: illiterate Q6: What is your occupation? A: Coolie Q7: Where do you reside? A: Indoor Q8: Who brought you to the hospital? A: Lalamma After deriving the answers to the above questions from the decalrant, I have satisfied that the declarant is conscious and is in fit state of mind to give the declaration. Then, I asked the declarant to give declaration. The declarant stated that: Q9: How did you receive injuries? A: My husband died 10 years ago. I have illegal relation with Vadla Narsimulu,since the death of my husband. He used to visit everyday. My daughter Mallamma went for coolie work and earned Rs.90O/- which was in the house. On 09.03.2011, at 10:30 P.M., he came home and asked lor Rs.900/-. I informed that I have to purchase rice and refused to give money. I asked to return Rs.2,000/- which was earlier given to him. Then, Narsimulu poured keroscne on me and lit flre and fled. Then my son Ramudu woke up and saw the inciden L. Q: Do have anything else to say:- A: Nothing Certihcation: 1 Certihed that the above statement is recorded by me, read over and explained lo the declarant and he/ she admitted the same to be true and correct. No police officials are allowed to be near the declarant except the duty doctor. Date: i0.03.2011, Time: 08:15 P.M Place: Tandur sd/- Judicial F irst Class Magistrate, Tandur. " ,) 5 '

8. pWl 1 filled in the answers in the printed proforma. The blanks about the time ard place were filled in. The satisfaction of tl_rc Magistrate was alread-y typed, and preliminary questions 1 to g were also inciuded. g. Firstl,1,, there is any amount cif variation between the two statements made by the deceased. In the first dying declaration made tr r PWl3, Inspector of pohce, she narrated that the incident happened on 10.03.2011 at 04:00 A.M. However, in the s tat, that t h e in cicr e,, r ^#::::tr, ".:;.T, :, T:r":;T: reason for the quat'rel was also stated differentiy. In the statement made to the Magistrate, the deceased narrated that her daughter had earned Rs.90O/-, which was kept in the house, and the accuseci insisted that the amount be given to him. However, in the statement made to thr s police officer, she narrated that a c "". ff::.'::li.: ::"r;r;:,# thadthe accused Further, the deceased tnut' the accused had arready taken Rs.s,ooo/ .".,,:t-"t":, rer. The said variation creates ary amount of doubt regarding the correctness of the statement made, especiall_r. in the -' background of the duty doctor not being examined, and ;econdly, the manner in which the ke*.. 6 statement was recorded by the Magistrate on the printed proforma

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Nallapati Siaaiah u. Sub-Ditrisional O;fficer, Guntur, Andhra Pradeshl, held as follows: "An objective and critical assessment of the material avarlable on record dlscloses that recording ol dying declarations commenced immediately after lhe victim was taken to the hospital nght from 06:OO P.M. onwards and went on till 07:10 P.M. It means that the victim was speakrng coherently from 06:00 P.M. to 07:10 P.M. on 05.0|. 1998. lt is not known as to what was the treatment administered to the vic m immediateiy a,fter he was brought to the hospital. No explanation is f6rthcoming as to why the duty doctor at Casualty was not examined. There is no evidence of treatment, if any, grven to the victim except the routinc and mechanica-l endorsement that the pati€nt was conscious and coherent and frt to give statement." 11 PW12, who treated the deceased and also conducted the autopsy, admitted in her cross-examination, as follows: \ "Cross examination by the defense counsel Sri D.Gopal Reddy. It is true that third degree and fourth degree extensive burns in this case after damaging dermo parts chared the burns. It is true that abdomina-l will' peritonea.l cavity artd stomach and its contents sustained third degree burns. Q: A person who suffered from 99 percent of burns such as the deceased in case on hand, be able to speak? Ans: Such person due to said percentage and degree of burns, is in hypovolmic shock, so he/she may not be in a position to speak."

12. No reason is given as to why the doctors who treated the deceased for 13 days, i.e., from 10.O3.20 1 1 to ' (2007) 15 scc 465 I l

23.O3.2O11, rvere not examined. The doctor who certified the mental health of the deceased at the time of givrng statement to the Magistrate uras also not examined. pW13 Investigating Offi<:er did not take r he advice of any doctor belbre recording the statemen t.

13. The Hon,ble Supreme Court, and another u. state of Maharashtraz, herdas lb,ows: Sampat Babso Kale " u ""," "14..In our vier.v, though dying declarations stald proved, the issue is i,r,hethei we '.rri..""i.,1# ,,."r".0 only on rhe basis of ttrcse ayi"g a."Laraii;;.'j;';."_" of the present nature where the victim had 9gol, burns and tht: doctor has srated from tf_r. .."..i"'ti.t painl<rlk.r was iniet led ar 3 3O u rn -j" ri" "a.u,ng declaralron had l,rtr.n rccorded thereaf(er. ther(. ts a serious doubr whslher tl min d, to - "r.., r, t;l'" Jl" Lq"*;:"'"",lrrit ;'j, ii" f;t 98Zo burns. She musr havc been ," e.#""*jlir,rro once a sedati!,e h:td been being in . srate o{ 6.1r";..}illtd '. the possibility of her -lr \iourd,=.-L. oli,,iH?":"1:"T:f,:lr,,it: :::. cndorser)(.nl madl Lv thr. je6.1sr ,tr, it *'"i.ii.'*"" l" a fit stat,. ol mind ro make tt. .t.t.-".ri'ir" 0"..",1"o" not before rhe srarement Uut aft.. i-t. ;;.;";;;"" recorded. Normally it should b" th" ";;. ffi;;il; 15. No doubt, a dving decla_r-ation is arr extremely i,,',Po:'":t. piece o[.uid"n.. a,-.,cl where the court rs satisfied rhar the dvrns dectar.ati"" t" ,*irrri,jl ";r#;ro and not rr result of an-y extraneous influence, the Court can con\i(.1 rhe accusecl only on ,h. ;;i;'.i'; ;;,rg dectararion We need not .efi. ,; ;il; ;ii;. i^r,l ,lJ, ,, would be apposite to refer the judgment of this court rn sham Shankar rcur,t r.11 ''*rnarls v. State of Maha:'ashtra: held as follo,,v.s---*' I ^,^'J grear ,,rr.ighr, rr rs wo;rhwhil. i" I fhough I dying declaration is entitled ro ";",.';il;",;: I {zots1 + 56s 73, ' (2006) 13 SCC 16s (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 663 8 \L __-_ 1 - accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. The court has to be on guald that the statement of dcceased was not as a result of erther tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The court must be further satisfied tha[ the deceased was rn a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailalt. Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and Voluntaqz, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying dcclaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence-"

16. In the present case, as we have already held above, there was some doubt as to whether the victim was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. No doubt, the doctor had stated that she was in a fit state of mind but he himself had, in his evidence, admitted that in thc case of a victim wrth 98%o burns, the shock may lead to delusion. Furthermore, in our view, the combined effect of the trauma with the administration of painkrllers could Iead to a case of possible b delusion, and therefore, there is a need to look for corroborative evidence in the prcsent case." t

14. As already stated, PWs. 1 to 10 have turned hostile to the prosecution. None of the witnesses have stated anything about the incident or any kind of disputes between the deceased and the accused. The only evidence left for consideration before this Court are the two dying declarations. The version given in the statement made to the Police Inspector is totally different from the statement made to the Magistrate. There is a difference in the timing of the I 9 incident, the relationship reasons for the quarrel u,ith the between accused, leading to the accused and setting her on fire. deceased, and also the the deceased and the allegedly pouring kerosene 15' Though dying decrarations can be solely relied upon to convict the accused, however, in the event ol. there being more than one dying declaration and the dying declarations contradicting one another, as rliscussed above. prudence requires that the Court, seek corroboration liom other evidence to substantiate the allegations made in the dying deciaration. There is absolutelv no corroboration whatsoever in the events narrated by the deceased in both the dying declarations. Since two dying declarations are made with contradictions, and in the background of the admission by the post-mortem do ctor about the deceased recervrng 98oZ burns with 3 to 4-de gree, which are extensive (3 to 4 inches a".j, ..,a considering that such person may not be in a position to speak, coupled with the fact that no doctors who treated the deceased or q,ere present when the dying declaration was recorded u,ere examined, the conviction cannot be sustained. t0

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, Maharashtra+, held as follows: in Uttam u. State of .. " 15. ln (.ases involving multiple dyrng -i"["i""-irr"t declarations made by the deceaseX, tr-r. arises for considcration is as to which of the said dyrng declara.tions oughr ro be believed uy tt . .o"ii"ra irit .t would be the guiding factors for arriving "t . ir"t'".ra lawful conclusion. Thc problem b.come's ulf- ihI _r.. 11^o^,:I yn"n. rhe dy.ing declarations made by the oeceased are lou nd to be contradictory. Faced with such a situarion, the court w,ould be exiected i" scrutinlsc the evidence to find out as to *fri.tr Jine "*"f"ffy dying declarations can be corroborated Uy otfre. mat..iat produced by the prosecution. Oi'-.q".r :19:::. srgnrllcance ls- thc conditlon of the deceased at the relevant point'l'n time, the medrcal evidence brought on record rhat would indicate the physical ,r,J ,i-""t"f -i;"-^';i;r" fitness of, thc deceased, the scope of relatives / family memtrers having influenc.aT tu to..J in. deceased alrd all the other attendant circumstan;;s thar would help the court in exercise of its discretion. I

17.ln Amol Singh u. State of Mp5, when faced with two dyrng declarations containing inconsistencies, -;"" the approach to be adopted by "the summarised as u nder: C;;a " 13. Law relating to appreciation ofevidence in the for.m of more tharl o4e dying declaration is well sertled. Accordingly. it is noi the plu.rfitu "i the dying declarations but the reliabiiity th;;e;i that adds weight to the prosecution case. [f a dying declaration is found to b. "otu.,t-y, reliable aud made in fit mental condition, it c# be relied upon without any corroboration. The statement should be consistent throughout. If the deceased had ser,,era.l opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if therJ are more than one dying declaration they should be consistent. (Sec Kundula Bala Subraimangam u. State of A.P.6) However, if some inconsisten'cies are noticed between one dying declaration ald the other, the court has to examine the nature oi o lzozzy e scc suo 5 (2008) 5 scc 468 : (2008) 2 scc (cri) 6 " (1993) 2 SCC 684 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 65s_ 37 {- the inconsistencies, namely, whether thev are material or not. Whjle scrutinisinB the c6n16615 61^ various dying declarations, in such a situirtion, the court has to examine the samc in the ligl.rt oi various surrounding facts :rr-rd circumstances." t7 This Criminal Appeal is allor,r.ed. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled //TRUE COPYII SD/. R. KARTH]KEYAN JOINT REGISTRAR sec\r1$ orrrcen To

1. The Xll Additional District a4! Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. ( with records)

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. 3. The Station House Officbr . Peddamul Police Station, Tandur Rural , Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

4. The Superintendent, Central Jail Chertapally, Hyderabad ( By Special Messenger) Hyderabad. (OUT)

5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 6. One CC to SRl. C. BUCHI REDDY Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies k-ul I HIGH COURT DATED:05/03/2025 JUDGMENT CRIMINAL APPEAL No.247 of'2017 t ALLOWING THE CRI-,APPEAL ..-' J ) (- ( '( 2 I JUL 2025 )' ,.,.-.. i-,' I