Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pujali Durga Devi And Another vs State Of Ap., on 13 November, 2025
Author: K. Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010309332018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3547]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1802/2018
Between:
1. PUJALI DURGA DEVI AND ANOTHER, DEVASENAPURAM VILLAGE,
PUTTUR MANDAL.
2. PUJALI JAGANNADHAM, DEVASENAPURAM VILLAGE, PUTTUR
MANDAL.
...APELLANT(S)
AND
1. STATE OF AP, Inspector of Police, PS.,Puttur Circle, through Public
Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
...RESPODENT
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High
Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Tirupathi convicting both the
accused with rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- in default simple
imprisonment for six months preferred this criminal appeal against the
judgment passed in SC.No.289 of 2015.
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
condone the delay of 37 days in representing the above case.
IA NO: 2 OF 2018
2
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
condone the delay of 19 days in filing the above Crl.A.
IA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
grant bail in Crime No. 89 of 2015 of PS Puttur Circle to the Satisfaction of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Puttur to Petitioners No. 1 and 2 for the above
reasons pending to disposal off main Criminal Appeal No. 1802 of 2018 on the
file of this Hon'ble High Court in the interest of justice
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the execution of sentence passed against the petitioner/accused
No.1 & 2 viz., Pujali Durga Devi & Pujali Jagannadham in S.C. No, 289 of
2015 on the file of the VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court),
Tirupati, dt. 29.01.2018 and release the petitioners on bail and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed against the
petitioner/accused No.l & 2 viz., Pujali Durga Devi & Pujali Jagannadham in
S.C. No. 289 of 2015 on the file of the VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge(Fast
Track Court), Tirupati, dt. 29.01.2018 and release the petitioners on bail and
to pass
Counsel for the Apellant(S):
1. M V SUBBA REDDY
Counsel for the Respodent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
and
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1802 of 2018
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.289 of 2015 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, are the appellants. They, along with Accused Nos.3 to 8 were tried by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge under the following two charges:
First charge was under Section 302 I.P.C. against A1 and A2.
Second charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. against A3 to A8.
2. Substance of the charges is that on 24.05.2015 at about 10.00 a.m., A1 poured kerosene on one P.Devani @ Devayani (herein referred as deceased) and A2 picked up a burning stick from the country oven and set fire to her due to the previous grudges regarding joint family properties, at the house of accused situated at Devasenapuram, Puttur Mandal, while A3 to A8 beat 4 deceased and while undergoing treatment deceased succumbed to injuries thereby, committed offences under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.
3. After completion of trial, the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge convicted A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for „LIFE‟ each and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, acquitted A3 to A8. Aggrieved by the same, A1 and A2 preferred the present appeal.
4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows:
(i) All the accused and the material prosecution witnesses, are residents of Devasenapuram, Puttur Mandal. A2 and A4 are the younger brothers of P.W.1. A3 is their father. A1 is the wife of A2. A5 is wife of A4. A6 to A8 are sisters of P.W.1. Earlier, all the accused along with P.W.1 and the deceased, used to reside jointly. P.W.1 and the deceased were blessed with three daughters. About 10 years prior to the date of the incident, A2 to A4 drove the family of P.W.1 out of the joint family home and as such, P.W.1 has been residing separately along with the deceased and their children. Subsequently, some part of the land was acquired by the Government for the formation of Galeru-Nagari canal and the joint family received compensation and P.W.1 was paid an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- towards his share. Later, P.W.1 demanded some more money for which A2 to A4 refused, and the matter was placed before the elders. Thereafter, A2 to A4 gave Ac.1.00 cents of land towards the share of P.W.1 as per the advice of the elders. Some altercation 5 took place between the family of P.W.1 and A2 to A4. The relationship between the families of A2 to A4 and the family of P.W.1 was strained due to the dispute about the joint family properties.
(ii) While so, about three months prior to the date of incident, the mother of P.W.1, who is the wife of P.W.3 passed away. Initially, P.W.1, who is the elder son, tried to perform funerals, but A2 to A4 objected to the same.
But at the intervention of the elders of the village, P.W.1 performed the funerals of his mother. Subsequently, after three months, P.W.1 and his wife decided to perform three months ceremony of the mother of P.W.1. For that purpose on 24.05.2015 at about 9.30 a.m., deceased went to the house of A2 to A4 and requested an old saree and blouse belonging to the mother of P.W.1. For which, A2 to A4 refused. Then the deceased repeatedly demanded them give a saree and blouse owned by the mother of P.W.1. Some altercation took place between the deceased and the accused. But in spite of the same, the deceased did not leave the place and sat there itself. It is alleged that at that time, A1 brought a kerosene tin and poured on the deceased. Immediately, A2 took out a burning stick from the country oven and set fire to the deceased. Then all the accused left the house by bolting the door from outside. Unable to bear the flames, the deceased raised cries. Hearing her cries, neighbours came there and sprinkled water and put off the flames. Thereafter, P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, came and, while he was taking her to hospital, on the way, shifted her in 108 Ambulance and was taken to the Government Hospital, Nagari.
6
(iii) P.W.15, S.I of Police, Nagari Police Station, having received information from the hospital, went there at about 11.30 a.m. and recorded a statement Ex.P1 from the injured. He informed the same to P.W.13, S.I of Police, Puttur Police Station. He sent one Police Constable to Nagari for collecting copy of Ex.P1. Thereafter, P.W.13 received Ex.P1 and registered a case in Cr.No.89 of 2013 under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Copy of FIR is marked as Ex.P10. Thereafter, injured was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. P.W.11, Assistant Professor, SVRRGG Hospital treated the injured. He found 95% to 100% burns over the body of the deceased.
(iv) Having received the hospital intimation, P.W.12, III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, went to the hospital at about 2.45 p.m. and recorded a statement Ex.P9 from the injured.
(v) While undergoing treatment, around 4.00 a.m. on 25.05.2015, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Having received the death intimation, P.W.13 altered the section of law from 307 to 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. Altered FIR is marked as Ex.P11. He sent copies of the altered FIR to all the concerned. At about 7.15 a.m. on 25.05.2015 P.W.14, S.I of Police received information from P.W.13. After receipt of the copy of FIR, P.W.14 secured the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 and proceeded to the hospital. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9 and also P.Ws.1 and 2. The Inquest report is marked as Ex.P5. He recorded statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the inquest. He forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination. 7
(vi) P.W.7, Assistant Professor, S.V.Medical College conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to burns. He issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P3.
(vii) P.W.14 proceeded to the scene of the offence and recorded the statement of P.W.4. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P12 at the scene of offence. He seized M.Os.1 to 3 at the scene of the offence. He also prepared an observation report Ex.P6. He also recorded statements of P.Ws.4 to 6 and others. On 04.06.2015, P.W.14 received Ex.P9 from JFCM, Puttur. On 05.06.2015, on credible information, he apprehended all the accused at Korlagunta Check Post of Karveti Nagar Mandal in the presence of P.W.10 and another. He arrested them and were remanded to judicial custody. Panchnama for arrest was marked as Ex.P7. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed charge sheet.
5. In support of its case the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 3. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.
6. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 coupled with Exs.P1 and P9, the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge convicted A1 and A2 as aforesaid.
7. Heard Sri M.V. Subba Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Marri Venkata Raman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
8
8. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that admittedly there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 came to the scene of the offence after hearing the cries of the deceased and found the injured in flames. They sprinkled water and put off the flames, and immediately P.Ws.1 and 3 shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Nagari. Learned counsel further states that the first dying declaration recorded by the P.W.15 at Government Hospital, Nagari, cannot be relied on as P.W.1, in his cross-examination, has testified that the police have obtained the thumb impression of the deceased on a blank white paper and thereafter it was filled up. As such, no reliance can be placed on the said dying declaration Ex.P1. Learned counsel further contends that the deceased was not in a position to make a statement as the burn injuries received by her were to an extent of 95% to 100%. Learned counsel further contended that it is the deceased who went to the house of the accused along with a kerosene tin and threatened A2 to A4, demanding more property towards their share. When A2 to A4 refused the said demand, the deceased poured kerosene on herself near the country oven, and accidentally she caught fire and the same was suggested to P.Ws.1 to 4. He further contends that the deceased was tutored by P.Ws.1 to 4 before recording Ex.P9, and no reliance can be placed on the said dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate. He further contended that by the time Ex.P9 was recorded, Ex.P1 was already pressed into service by the family members of the deceased, and the same must have been informed to the deceased, as such, she was tutored by the relatives. The learned counsel 9 further contends that Ex.P9 is highly doubtful, and there was no other corroborating material to the said dying declaration. As such, he requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge by allowing the appeal.
9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal, contending that Ex.Ps.1 and 9 inspire confidence of the Court and there is nothing to disbelieve both the statements. He also contends that Ex.P.1 and 9 were also corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge.
10. We have carefully scrutinised the entire evidence on record.
11. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6, admittedly, there are serious disputes between the families of the accused on one side and the family of P.W.1 on the other side. P.W.1, in his evidence, has also stated that there are cases against both parties. As such, relations between the families of the accused and the family of P.W.1 are strained. At one stage, when the wife of A3 expired, there was an objection from the side of the accused for performing funerals by P.W.1. It was only after the advice of the elders in the village, the accused allowed P.W.1 to perform funerals. As such, P.Ws.1 to 4 have got their motive to implicate all the accused.
10
12. Coming to the first dying declaration Ex.P1, which was recorded by P.W.15 at about 11.30 a.m. on 24.05.2015 at Government Hospital, Nagari, P.W.1, in his cross-examination, has testified as follows:
"I got identified the thumb impression of my wife on Ex.P1, as I have seen her while affixing the same in hospital. I cannot say the exact time when the police have commenced the drafting of Ex.P1 statement from my wife and how much time they consumed for it. I do not know the rank of police officer who recorded the statement of my wife. Witness explains the Court that the police obtained thumb impression of his wife on a paper and thereafter prepared her statement." (emphasis added)
13. In view of the specific admission made by P.W.1, we are of the considered opinion that the dying declaration Ex.P1 was not recorded, as per the dictation of the deceased. Having obtained the thumb impression on a blank piece of white paper, the police prepared Ex.P1 as per the dictation of the prosecution and the family members of P.W.1.
14. In view of the above admission made by P.W.1, we have no hesitation in concluding that P.W.15 prepared the dying declaration-Ex.P1, and it is an afterthought. As such, no reliance can be placed on the said dying declaration Ex.P1 recorded by P.W.15.
11
15. Coming to the second dying declaration, Ex.P9 recorded by P.W.12, the deceased has stated that she went to the house of the accused and asked them to give an old saree and blouse of her mother-in-law to perform some rituals. The altercation took place between the accused and the deceased. When the accused refused to give an old saree and blouse of her mother-in- law, the deceased argued with them and sat there. In Ex.P9, it was further stated that at that time, A1 poured kerosene on the deceased, and A2 took out a burning stick from the country oven and set fire to her and A3 to A5 beat the deceased indiscriminately.
16. In Ex.P9 the deceased has also stated that A1 to A6 set fire to her. She further stated in Ex.P9 that the accused set fire to her inside the house. In Ex.P9 deceased has also stated that they got an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards their share. She further stated in Ex.P9 that if she is alive, she may demand properties and cash from the accused, and therefore, they set fire to her. She further stated that she received burns because of A1 to A4.
17. In Ex.P9, the deceased has stated different versions at different places. There is no consistency in Ex.P9. At one stage, the deceased stated that A1 poured kerosene and A2 set fire, and A3 to A8 beat her. At another stage, in Ex.P9, the deceased has stated that A1 to A6 set fire to her. At another stage, the deceased stated that she received burns at the hands of A1 to A4. At another stage, she stated that all the accused set fire to her inside the house of the accused.
12
18. According to the evidence of the prosecution, P.Ws.2 and 4 shifted the injured from Government Hospital, Nagari, to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. By the time the injured was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati Ex.P1 was already prepared and pressed into service by the prosecution party. P.W.12, the Judicial Officer recorded Ex.P9 statement between 2.45 p.m. and 3.35 p.m. As such, P.Ws.2 and 4 must have tutored the deceased before giving Ex.P9 statement. Ex.P9 was not consistent, and the deceased gave divergent versions in Ex.P9. There is no consistency as to who set fire to her. It is further stated in Ex.P9 that the deceased also altercated with the accused. It is also stated in Ex.P9 that when the accused refused to give the saree and blouse of her mother-in-law, she sat there, somewhat protesting the said refusal.
19. A three-judge bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Irfan @ Naka Vs State of Uttar Pradesh1, extensively considered the theory regarding the acceptability of a dying declaration. In that case, the dying declaration was video-graphed and the CD was exhibited in evidence. The Hon‟ble Apex Court concluded that the dying declarations do not inspire the confidence of the Court, as also the oral evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 therein. 1 AIR 2023 SC 4129 = 2023 INSC 758 13
20. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Muthu Kutty v. State,2 observed as follows:
"15. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the 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 guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, or prompting or a product of imagination. The court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under as indicated in Paniben v. State of Gujarat [(1992) 2 SCC 474 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 403 : AIR 1992 SC 1817] : (SCC pp. 480-81, paras 18-19)
(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. (See Munnu Raja v. State of M.P. [(1976) 3 SCC 104 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 376 : (1976) 2 SCR 764] )
(ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration.
(See State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav [(1985) 1 SCC 552 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 127 : AIR 1985 SC 416] and Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar [(1983) 1 SCC 211 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 169 : AIR 1983 SC 164] .) 2 (2005) 9 SCC 113 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1202 14
(iii) The Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (See K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor [(1976) 3 SCC 618 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 473 : AIR 1976 SC 1994] .)
(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (See Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 264 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 426] )
(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. (See Kake Singh v. State of M.P. [1981 Supp SCC 25 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 645 : AIR 1982 SC 1021] )
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (See Ram Manorath v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 654 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 581] )
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (See State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu [1980 Supp SCC 455 :
1981 SCC (Cri) 364 : AIR 1981 SC 617] .)
(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. (See Surajdeo Ojha v. State of Bihar [1980 Supp SCC 769 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 519 : AIR 1979 SC 1505] .)
(ix) Normally the Court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. (See Nanhau Ram v. State of M.P. [1988 Supp SCC 152 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 342 : AIR 1988 SC 912] ) 15
(x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. (See State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan [(1989) 3 SCC 390 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 585 : AIR 1989 SC 1519] .)
(xi) Where there are more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of dying declaration could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted. (See Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra [(1982) 1 SCC 700 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 334 : AIR 1982 SC 839] .)"
21. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Nallapati Sivaiah v. SDO3, while explaining the principles of dying declarations upon which its admissibility is founded observed as follows:
"25. The court has to consider each case in the circumstances of the case. What value should be given to a dying declaration is left to court, which on assessment of the circumstances and the evidence and materials on record, will come to a conclusion about the truth or otherwise of the version, be it written, oral, verbal or by sign or by gestures."
22. In Irfan's case (referred supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court at para 61 observed as follows:
"In India, too, a similar pattern is followed, where the courts are first required to satisfy themselves that the dying declaration in question is reliable and truthful before placing any reliance upon it. Thus, dying declaration while carrying a presumption of being true must be wholly reliable and inspire confidence. Where there is any suspicion over the veracity of the same or the evidence on record shows that the duing 3 (2007) 15 SCC 465 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 560 16 declaration is not true it will only be considered as a piece of evidence but cannot be the basis for conviction alone."
23. As already pointed out, P.W.1 has specifically admitted that the police have obtained the thumb impression of the deceased on the blank white paper and thereafter prepared Ex.P1 statement. As such, we are not inclined to place any reliance on Ex.P1. So far as Ex.P9 is concerned, the deceased has given inconsistent versions in the said statement as to who set fire to her. As such, the said dying declaration-Ex.P9 does not inspire confidence. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below erred in convicting and sentencing A1 and A2 for the charged offence, as indicated supra, and the same is liable to be set aside.
24. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, in S.C.No.289 of 2015 dated 29.01.2018 under Section 302 I.P.C. is hereby set aside. The accused are acquitted accordingly. Fine amount if any paid by the appellants shall be refunded. As the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 were already released on bail, by order dated 01.10.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024, they are directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore, and complete the formalities as per the guidelines enunciated in Batchu Rangarao and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011). Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 17
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _______________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 13.11.2025 SNI 18 202 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Criminal Appeal No.1802 of 2018 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 13.11.2025 SNI