IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 840-841 OF 2003

Ongole Ravikanth …Appellant   

Versus

State of A.P. …Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J.

1. The appellant has preferred these appeals against the  

judgment  of the  High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in  

Criminal Appeal  No.   1613   of 1997 and Criminal Appeal  

No.  1461  of  1998   whereby  the  High  Court  altered  the  

judgment  of  conviction  against  the  appellant,   recorded  

under Section 324 IPC by the  Sessions Court,  Guntur in

Sessions  Case  No.  274  of  1976.  The  High  Court   while  

setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 324  

IPC convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under  

Section  304  Part  I   of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (IPC)  and  

sentenced him to undergo  rigorous imprisonment for  seven  

years.

2. The  prosecution  story,  briefly  stated,  is  that  the  

deceased  was married to the appellant in the year 1994 and  

led  marital  life  for  about  1  ½ years  and gave  birth  to  a  

daughter in 1995. It is alleged   that even while living with  

his wife the accused developed illegal intimacy with other  

women and was found flirting with them and some times he  

used  to  bring  those  women  to   the  matrimonial  home.  

Naturally, the deceased raised serious objections as to the  

conduct of  the appellant    indulging in such immoral  and  

objectionable activities. The appellant instead of mending his  

ways  frequently used to taunt her saying that “you can also  

have a paramour if you want”. On 11.1.1997 at about 9.00

p.m. when both the deceased and the  appellant were in the  

bedroom,  the  accused  switched  on  the  tape-recorder;  on  

that the deceased asked him to put off the same but the  

appellant did not stop it  and on the contrary he slapped the  

deceased  which  led  to  a  quarrel   between  them.   The  

appellant mockingly suggested to the deceased  to go away  

with someone of her choice and leave him alone.  Having  

been  hurt  by  the  provocative  words  and  the  vulgar  

behaviour of the appellant  she rushed into the kitchen and  

brought kerosene and a matchbox. She poured the kerosene  

on herself.   The appellant obviously having snatched  the  

match box from her lit the match stick and threw the same  

on  the  deceased   resulting  in  severe   burns  to  her  vital  

organs  of the body. Immediately, the deceased came out of  

the bedroom  with  flames  crying loudly.  On hearing the  

cries and on seeing her in flames, the father of the appellant  

and other neighbours poured water on her body and covered  

her  with  a  bed  sheet.   In  the  meantime,  the  appellant

arranged an auto and took her to her parents' house in the  

same  locality  and  from  there   she  was  shifted  to  

Government General Hospital, Guntur by her brother (PW-

1).

3. On  requisition   from  the  Hospital  authorities,  the  

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur recorded her  

dying  declaration  in  the  presence  of  the  Medical  Officer.  

Based  on  the   statement  (Ex.P-4)  the  Police  Station  

Pattabhipuram,  Guntur issued First Information Report (Ex.  

P-16) and registered  the same as Crime No. 2 of 1997 for  

the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 307 IPC  

against  the  appellant.   While  undergoing  treatment  the  

deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on 18.1.1997 at  

4.45  p.m.  in  the  Government  Hospital,  Guntur.  Upon  

receiving information the police altered the provisions of law  

into Sections 498A and 302 IPC and accordingly issued the  

altered FIR. After completion of the investigation, the police

filed  charge  sheet   against  the  appellant  under  Sections  

498A and 302 IPC.

4. The prosecution in order to establish its case against  

the appellant  altogether  examined 15 witnesses  (PW-1 to  

PW-15) and 21 documents were got Exhibited (Ex. P-1 to P-

21).  The appellant pleaded of his false implication in the  

case.  

5. The learned Sessions Judge upon appreciation of the  

evidence  available  on  record  held  that  prosecution  

established its case beyond doubt that the appellant lit the  

match stick when the deceased herself poured kerosene on  

her body. However, the learned Sessions Judge came to the  

conclusion that the appellant had no intention to kill his wife.  

In the result, the learned Sessions Judge held that in the  

circumstances  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  appellant  was  

having any knowledge that the burn injuries were likely to  

cause the death of the deceased. But his act would certainly  

cause hurt to a person and accordingly found the appellant

guilty under Section 324 IPC. We must express our anguish  

about the manner in which the learned Sessions Judge has  

dealt with the matter.  

6. The appellant  as well  as  the State preferred appeals  

against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.  The  

High Court upon re-appreciation of the evidence and more  

particularly relying upon the evidence of PWs -1, 3 and 4  

coupled with the dying declaration (Ex. P-4) held that there  

were serious disputes between the appellant  and his  wife  

with regard to the wayward habits of the appellant resulting  

in frequent quarrels between them which led to the incident  

on the fateful day.  The High Court also found the appellant  

himself put her on fire which resulted  in causing 60% burns  

all  over  the  body  and  more  particularly  on  vital  parts  

resulting in death of the deceased.  The High Court found  

the incident took place on the “spur of the moment” due to  

quarrel that had developed in the bed room due to which the  

deceased poured kerosene on herself,  the accused lighted

the match stick which ultimately resulted in her death. In  

the result, the High Court  found the appellant guilty of the  

offence  punishable  under  Section  304  Part  I  IPC  and  

sentenced  him  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment   for  a  

period of seven years.  Hence, these appeals by the accused  

against his conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I  

IPC.  The State did not prefer any appeal though it filed the  

charge  sheet  against  the  appellant  for  the  offence  

punishable under Section 498A and 302 IPC.  

7. Shri  A.D.N.  Rao,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  

submitted that the High Court  committed serious error  in  

coming to  the conclusion  that  the appellant  snatched the  

match stick from the deceased and  set  her on fire which  

resulted in causing  60% of the burns all over the body.  It  

was  submitted  that  admittedly  even  according  to  the  

prosecution the deceased poured kerosene on herself  and  

came with the match box, thereafter  what happened is  a  

matter  for  guess  and  in  the  absence  of  any  reliable

evidence, there was no justification to convict the appellant  

under Section 304 Part I of IPC.  

8. The short question which arises for our consideration in  

these  appeals  is  whether  the  High  Court  committed  any  

error in convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part I  

IPC?  The  entire  prosecution  story  rests  upon  the  dying  

declaration (Ex. P-4) recorded by the learned Judicial First  

Class Magistrate at about 11.30 p.m. on 11.1.1997.  Be it  

noted  that  the  incident  had taken  place  on  11.1.1997  at  

about 10.00 p.m. in the house of  the appellant.  PW-4 who  

is none other than the father of the appellant who did not  

support the prosecution case on account of which he was  

declared hostile stated in his evidence that the incident  had  

taken place on 11.1.1997 at about 10 or 10.30 p.m.  in his  

house in the bedroom  of the  appellant and the deceased.  

The deceased rushed out of the bedroom crying loudly. He  

extinguished the fire by pouring water on the body of the  

deceased and covered her with a bed sheet. The appellant

took  the  deceased  in  an  auto  to  her  parents  house  and  

thereafter  got  her  admitted  in  the  hospital.   Dr.  CH.  

Raghukula  Kiran  (PW-13)   stated in  his  evidence  that  on  

11.1.1997 at about 11.00 p.m. the deceased was brought to  

the casualty ward  with burn injuries by the appellant.  He  

gave  first  aid  to  the  injured  and  thereafter  sent  Ex.  P-3  

requisition  to  the  Judicial  First  Class  Magistrate  (PW-2).  

According to him PW-2 came to the casualty ward of the  

hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased.  He  

was present at the time of recording of the statement and  

found that the  deceased was conscious and coherent at the  

time  of  recording  her  statement  by  PW-2.   He  made  an  

endorsement  on the statement   recorded by PW-2 to the  

effect that the patient was conscious and coherent and she  

was in a fit condition to give the statement.  Ex. P-14 is the  

endorsement made on Ex. P-4.  

9. PW-2, the Judicial First Class Magistrate in his evidence  

in clear and categorical term stated that having received the

requisition  from  the  hospital  authorities  on  11.1.1997  at  

about  11.20  p.m.  he  proceeded  to  casualty  ward  of  the  

hospital and reached there at about  11.30 p.m.  The duty  

doctor PW-13 was present at that time.  In order to satisfy  

himself as to whether the deceased was in a fit condition to  

make  her  statement  put  some  preliminary  questions.  

Having been satisfied that she was in a fit state of mind to  

give  statement  proceeded to  record  the dying  declaration  

(Ex. P-4) as per her narration. He obtained the left thumb  

impression   of  the  deceased   on  Ex.  P-4.   In  the  cross  

examination he stated that the deceased narrated the entire  

statement without any break or stop and the actual words as  

stated by the deceased were incorporated in Ex. P-4. There  

were no corrections in it.  The duty doctor PW-13 made an  

endorsement to Ex. P-4 to the effect that the patient was in  

a fit  condition to give statement.  

10. The deceased in her dying declaration stated in clear  

and categorical terms that the appellant used to quarrel with

her  whenever  she  questioned  him  about  his  illegal  and  

immoral  activities  of  having  illicit  intimacy  with  some  

women.  He used to taunt her to develop illicit intimacy with  

someone of her choice.  It may be relevant to extract the  

relevant portion from her statement recorded by the Judicial  

First Class Magistrate which is as follows:  

“Today  night  during  bed  time  he  switched  on  the  tape  recorder.  I  objected  for  it  saying  that  it  is  allergy to  me.  Then he beat me on  my  cheek.   He  advised  me  to  develop  illicit  intimacy  with  some  one and go away.  On hearing it, I  felt  very  much  and  brought  kerosene  and  myself  poured  kerosene  on  me  and  brought  a  match stick.   Then my husband lit  the  match  stick.   Then  the   time  was  10 or  10.30. Then I  ran  out.  My  father  in  law  Ongole  David  covered  me  with  blanket  and  poured water.  Later I  was brought  to the hospital.”  

 (Emphasis is of ours)

11. The  deceased  passed  away  on  18.1.1997  while  

undergoing  treatment  in  hospital  at  Guntur.  PW-10 is

the  Professor  of  Forensic  Medicine,  Guntur  College,  

Guntur  who in his evidence stated that he received a  

requisition from the Executive Magistrate  to conduct the  

post-mortem   examination  of  the  dead  body  of  the  

deceased.  He conducted the post- mortem examination  

during which he found the following injuries:  

“1. 60% infected burns present over face, front  of  neck,  chest  and  upper  2/3rd part  of  abdomen over all sides, upper limbs except  dorsum of hands on both sides, left  glutei  region, part of front of middle part of both  thighs.  

2. Two venesection wounds with sutures and  dressing present, one on the inner aspect  of each ankle.”  

12. Whether  this  evidence is  not  sufficient  to  convict  

the appellant? Shri A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel for the  

appellant did not make any submission as regards Ex. P-

4 dying declaration except contending that the contents  

of  Ex. P-4 do not disclose that it was the appellant who

lit the match stick resulting in fire and causing burns on  

the  body  of  the  deceased.  The  submission  was  that  

courts below indulged in guess work in the absence of  

any evidence in convicting the appellant.  

13. An objective and critical assessment of the material  

available  on  record  discloses  that  requisition  was  

immediately sent to the Judicial  First  Class Magistrate  

after the victim was taken to the hospital at about 10.00  

p.m.,  on   11.1.1997.   The  recording  of  the  dying  

declaration by PW-2 commenced at about  11.30 p.m.  

and went on till about 11.55 p.m.   It means the victim  

was speaking coherently and was in a fit  condition to  

make a statement.  

14. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our  

hands that dying declaration can form the sole basis for  

conviction. But at the same time due care and caution  

must be exercised in considering weight to be given to

dying  declaration  inasmuch  as  there  could  be  any  

number of circumstances  which may affect the truth.  It  

has been repeatedly held by this Court that the courts  

have  always  to  be  on  guard  to  see  that  the  dying  

declaration  was  not  the  result  of  either  tutoring  or  

prompting or a product of imagination. It is the duty of  

the courts to find that the deceased was in a fit state of  

mind to make the dying declaration.  In order to satisfy  

itself that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to  

make the dying declaration, the courts have to look for  

the medical opinion. [See: Smt. Paniben  Vs. State of  

Gujarat  (1992)2  SCC 474,  K.  Ramachandra  Reddy  

and Anr.  Vs.  The Public  Prosecutor(  1976)  3  SCC  

618, Darshan Singh @ Bhasuri & Ors.  Vs.  State of  

Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 411, Kanchy Komuramma  Vs.  

State of A.P. ( 1995) Supp. 4 SCC 118, Maniram  Vs.  

State of M.P. ( 1994) Supp. 2 SCC 539, Laxman  Vs.

State of Maharashtra  ( 2002) 6 SCC 710 & Nallapati  

Sivaiah   Vs.  Sub-Divisional  Officer,  Guntur,  A.P.  

AIR 2008 SC 19].  

15. In the light of the law laid down by this Court we  

have  critically  examined  dying  declaration  (Ex.  P-4)  

made  by  the  deceased  and  the  surrounding  

circumstances.  There  is  no  doubt  whatsoever  the  

statement  made  by  the  deceased  was  on  her  own  

volition.  It was voluntarily made without any coercion  

or  tutoring  of  anyone.  The  statement  is  natural  and  

coherently made by  the deceased in a fit state of mind.  

There  is nothing on record to doubt the evidence of PW-

2 who recorded the dying declaration and evidence of  

duty  doctor  (PW-13)  who  certified  that  the  deceased  

was in fit state of mind to make her statement. Except  

PW-2 and PW-13 no other individual was present when

she made the statement.  We do not find any reason  

whatsoever  not  to  accept  the  dying declaration.   The  

question  is  whether  the  contents  do  not  disclose  any  

offending act by the appellant? The deceased in clear  

and categorical terms stated that she poured kerosene  

on herself  and it was the appellant who lit the match  

stick  resulting  in  fire  and  causing  60%  burns  which  

ultimately  led  to  her  death.  The  appellant  instead  of  

preventing the deceased pouring kerosene upon herself  

lit the match stick resulting in fire and causing burns.  

The  appellant  knew  very  well  that  the  body  of  the  

deceased was drenched with kerosene yet he indulged in  

the  cruel  act  of  lighting  the  match  stick.  In  the  

circumstances,  we  find  it  difficult  to  accept  the  

submission that the contents of dying declaration (Ex.P-

4) do not disclose the commission of any offence by the  

appellant.  Can  it  be  said  that  the  appellant  was  not

aware  that   his  act   was  likely   cause  serious  burn  

injuries  to  the  deceased.  The  appellant  was  in  fact  

charged  for  the  offences  punishable  under  Sections  

498A and 302 IPC.  We do not know what view the court  

would have taken had there been an appeal by the State  

as against the acquittal  of the appellant under Section  

302 IPC?  Suffice it to say that the High Court took a  

very  lenient  view in   convicting  the  appellant  for  the  

offence  punishable  under  Section  304  Part  I  IPC  and  

sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment only  

for a period of seven years.  

16. No other point is urged.  

17. For the aforesaid reasons we confirm the conviction  

of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section  

304 Part I of  IPC and the sentence awarded by the High  

Court.  

18. These appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.

 ……………………………………J.      (B. Sudershan Reddy)

……………………………………J.  (Aftab Alam)

New Delhi;  June 17, 2009