JUPUDI SURESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two children were orphaned, when the mother died of acute burn injuries and the father was accused of having murdered the mother. The prosecution went to trial with the circumstances of the constant quarrels between the couple, which even led to the couple residing adjacent to the house of the parents of the wife. The alleged homicidal death as coming out from the postmortem report, two dying declarations and the absence of an explanation under Sec. 106 of the husband, for the death by burns occurred in the marital house where the couple were residing, were the circumstances relied on by the prosecution. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment, which was affirmed by the High Court.

(2.) Sri. Satinder Singh Gulati learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused pointed out that there is discrepancy insofar as the motive, which led to the appellant allegedly murdering the deceased; as disclosed in the two dying declarations, which is a material inconsistency inuring to the benefit of the accused. It is also pointed out that the first dying declaration was not proved, since the Head Constable who is said to have recorded it, expired. The time shown in both the dying declarations makes it very suspicious. The immediate relatives of the deceased PW1 to PW3; her sister, her cousin and her mother does not inculpate the accused in their testimony; all of them having become hostile in Court but not declared so. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem clearly stated as revealed from the postmortem certificate that the victim suffered 96% burns. It was his testimony in crossexamination that a person who has suffered from 80 to 90% burns would be conscious and fit to give a statement; which has to benefit the accused. The appellant, hence, has to be acquitted is the compelling submission.

(3.) Ms. Prerna Singh, learned Government Advocate on the other hand argued in favour of the conviction and sentence awarded by two Courts, concurrently. It is argued that discrepancies were with respect to the prior incident and not with respect to the crime proper. It has been categorically stated by the victim that, after the accused poured kerosene on her, she was set ablaze. Though the Head Constable who recorded the first dying declaration was not available, the Sub- Inspector of the Police Station in which the Head Constable was working had confirmed the statement. The Trial Court has discarded the depositions of PW1 to PW3 on the ground that they had been won over. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution, even without any supporting testimony from the relatives of the deceased, clearly brings home the guilt of the accused, is the argument.