Jupudi Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Background
A husband was tried for allegedly murdering his wife by pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze, following frequent marital quarrels. The prosecution relied on the postmortem report, two dying declarations, and the absence of an explanation from the husband under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court convicted him and imposed life imprisonment, and the High Court affirmed the conviction.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found the two dying declarations deeply unreliable: their recorded timings were inconsistent with each other and with the FIR, and the post-mortem doctor testified that a person with 96% burns (as the victim had) would typically not be able to speak coherently, whereas a credible statement was only medically plausible for burns in the 80-90% range. The Court also found that the High Court had wrongly discredited the testimony of the victim's close relatives (PW1-PW3), who were never declared hostile and whose cross-examination evidence pointing to a possible suicide was never put to them as a contradiction through the Investigating Officer. With the homicidal nature of the death itself in doubt and no circumstance credibly established against the accused, the Court held the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him, ordering his release if not required in any other case.
Lesson Learnt
A dying declaration is not automatically reliable. Courts must test whether its recorded timing and the victim's medical condition make it medically plausible, and witness testimony cannot be brushed aside as an "afterthought" unless it was actually confronted with any earlier statement through the investigating officer.