REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 1162  OF 2007

Dasari Peda Gondiyya  ….Appellant

Versus

Station House Officer, Jangreddygudem ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant  for

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in

short  the  ‘IPC’).  The  accused  was  charged  for  allegedly  killing  of

Thirupathamma  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘deceased’)  by  pouring

kerosene and burning her at 10.00 p.m. on 29.10.2000 at the house in which

she was kept by him as his mistress.  

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

The deceased was the wife of one Narsaiah and he left her after the

birth  of  a female child  and therefore  the deceased used to  live  with  her

parents. She developed illicit intimacy with the accused three years prior to

the date  of  occurrence.  The accused kept  the  deceased in  a thatched hut

separately and started living with her. The accused used to drink ID arrack

and beat the deceased by suspecting her character. On 29.10.2000 at about

6.30  p.m.  the  accused  quarrelled  with  the  deceased  by  suspecting  her

fidelity, beat her and abused her in filthy language and went away. At about

10.00 p.m. the accused returned to the house in drunken state, picked up the

kerosene tin, poured kerosene on the deceased while she was lying on the

cot and set fire to her person and fled away  from the house by bolting the

door from outside.  When the deceased raised cries,  the neighbours  came

there and found the accused running away from the house. They opened the

door,  extinguished  the  flames and took  the deceased to  the  hospital.  On

receipt of requisition from the hospital, the Sub Inspector of Police (PW-10)

2

reached the hospital, recorded the statement of the deceased and registered a

crime under Section 307 IPC. The Mandal  Revenue Officer recorded the

dying declaration of the deceased. When the mother of the deceased (PW-1)

questioned  the  deceased  she  stated  that  the  accused  was  responsible  for

burns. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries

at about 12.30 p.m. on 2.11.2000. Section of law was altered and FIR was

sent  to  the  concerned  court.  During  the  course  of  investigation,  the

Inspector  of  Police,  visited  the  scene  of  offence,  observation  report  was

prepared,  inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and dead

body  was  sent  for  post-mortem  examination.  After  receipt  of  necessary

reports and after completion of the investigation, the police laid the charge

sheet. The plea of the accused was one of denial.  

In  order  to  establish  the  accusations,  prosecution  examined  12

witnesses. The trial Court referred to the evidence of PW-10 who recorded

the dying  declaration  of  the deceased by Ext.P14.  It  also  referred  to  the

evidence  of  the  Mandal  Revenue  Officer  (PW-6)  who  on  receipt  of  the

requisition from the Sub Inspector of Police, proceeded to the Government

Hospital and found the deceased lying with burn injuries.  He cleared all the

persons from that place and recorded the dying declaration Ext.P5 in the

3

presence of the duty doctor PW-7. Accordingly, conviction was recorded.

Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court. He took the stand that

the dying declarations are not reliable. The High Court did not accept the

stand  and dismissed  the  appeal.  It  was  submitted  in  this  appeal  that  the

dying declaration Ext.P-14 as recorded by PW 10 is different from what was

recorded  by  the  Mandal  Revenue  Officer  (PW-6).  In  any  event,  it  was

submitted  that  there  was  no  intention  to  kill  the  deceased  and  therefore

Section 302 has no application.  

PW-1 is the mother of the deceased who deposed that the deceased

had illicit intimacy with the accused and accused was beating her frequently

on account of suspicion of her character.  On the date of occurrence, as is

evident  from the  evidence  of  PW-10  who recorded  the  statement  of  the

deceased Ext.P14, the accused asked her whether she had gone for cutting

paddy crop. When she informed that no sickle was available and, therefore,

she went to some other work, the accused stated that there was somebody

for her and, therefore, she went to other work and had beaten her. At about

10.00 p.m. while she was sleeping on a cot, the accused came in a drunken

state  and  brought  kerosene  and  poured  it  on  her  and  lit  a  matchstick.

Immediately, her body caught fire and there were burns all over her body.

4

On hearing her cries, neighbours reached there and removed her clothes and

extinguished  the  flames  by  using  gunny bags  and  she  was  taken  to  the

Government Hospital.   At the said hospital,  the Mandal  Revenue Officer

(PW-6) recorded her dying declaration.  

The doctor PW-7 certified that she was conscious to answer and made

an  endorsement  to  that  effect  in  the  dying  declaration  Ext.P5.  The

endorsement is Ext. P6.  

3. We find  that  the  declaration  given  by the  deceased  to  the  mother

(PW-1), the statement recorded by PW-10 Ext.P14 and the dying declaration

recorded by Mandal Revenue Officer (PW-6), Ext.P5 clearly establish that

the deceased gave a consistent version in the dying declarations pointing out

that the accused was responsible for her burns.  There were reasons as to

why accused set her on fire.  

4. The factual scenario as described above leaves no manner of doubt

that  the  accused  was  responsible  for  causing  homicidal  death  of  the

deceased.  Judgments of the Trial Court and High Court do not suffer from

any infirmity to warrant interference.  

5

5. The appeal is dismissed.  

………….…… ….........................J.

(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)              

         ………….……

….........................J.          (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, November 12, 2008

6