Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband In Wife’s Burn Death Case After Finding Serious Contradictions In Dying Declarations
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently acquitted a husband who was earlier convicted in a case relating to the burn death of his wife after finding serious contradictions in the prosecution’s story and multiple dying declarations.
Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi delivered the judgement while hearing a criminal appeal and observed that when multiple dying declarations are completely inconsistent with each other, courts must carefully examine the entire evidence before relying upon any one statement to convict an accused person.
Background of the Case
The case related to the death of a woman from the Kurnool district who suffered severe burn injuries on 12 January 2007 and later died during treatment.
According to the prosecution, the husband used to suspect the fidelity of his wife and regularly harassed her after consuming alcohol.
The prosecution alleged that on the night of the incident, the husband abused and assaulted his wife and instigated her to commit suicide. It was further alleged that the woman poured kerosene on herself and the husband lit a matchstick and threw it on her, resulting in severe burn injuries.
Charges Framed Against The Husband
- Section 498-A IPC – Cruelty by husband or relatives
- Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder
- Section 304 Part II IPC – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
After the woman’s death, the husband was charged under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. However, the trial court acquitted him of offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC but convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.
The husband later challenged the conviction before the High Court.
Major Contradiction: First Statement Before Doctor
During the hearing, the defence argued that the first statement made by the deceased before the doctor at the hospital was completely different from the later dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution.
The Court noted that the doctor had recorded in the hospital accident register that the woman stated she suffered burn injuries accidentally while sleeping in the hut at around 8:00 PM.
The High Court found that this first statement was suppressed during the trial and surfaced only during the cross-examination of the doctor.
The Importance Of The First Version
The court observed that the first version given immediately after an incident generally carries greater evidentiary value because it is more natural, spontaneous, and less likely to be influenced by external factors.
However, the prosecution later relied upon two other dying declarations recorded by the police officer and the judicial magistrate in which the woman blamed her husband for the incident.
High Court On Multiple Dying Declarations
The Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that when multiple dying declarations are contradictory and irreconcilable, courts cannot selectively rely upon one statement while ignoring another.
“In the case of the third category of cases, there are more than one dying declaration, and inconsistencies between the declarations are absolute, and the dying declarations are irreconcilable, being repugnant to one another. The duty of the court is to examine the rest of the materials in the form of evidence placed before the court and still conclude that the incriminatory dying declaration is capable of being relied upon.”
The Court stressed that independent corroborative evidence becomes extremely important in cases involving conflicting dying declarations.
Child Witness Supported Accidental Fire Theory
The High Court also found that the testimony of the couple’s young son supported the accidental fire theory.
According to the child witness, the hut accidentally caught fire while the family was sleeping, and the mother pushed the children outside to save them before suffering burn injuries herself.
The Court noted that the prosecution never cross-examined the child witness on this crucial aspect.
Medical Evidence Weakened Prosecution Case
The High Court further observed that doctors did not detect a kerosene smell on the body of the deceased, which weakened the prosecution’s allegation that kerosene had been poured before the incident.
High Court Criticised Selective Reliance on Evidence
After analysing the complete evidence on record, the High Court held that the first statement made before the doctor appeared more natural and reliable than the later dying declarations.
The Court criticised the trial court for ignoring important defence-friendly evidence and selectively relying upon only the incriminating dying declarations.
Holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the husband under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
Key Legal Principles from the Judgement
- Contradictory dying declarations cannot be blindly accepted without corroborative evidence.
- The first version recorded immediately after an incident often carries greater evidentiary value.
- Suppression of material evidence can seriously weaken the prosecution’s case.
- Courts must consider defence-friendly evidence fairly and objectively.
- Criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | Role In This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 302 IPC | Punishment for murder | The husband was originally charged for allegedly causing the death of his wife. |
| Section 304 Part II IPC | Punishment for culpable homicide where there is knowledge of likely death but no intention to murder | The trial court convicted the husband under this section, but the High Court later acquitted him. |
| Section 498-A IPC | Cruelty or harassment by a husband or relatives towards a married woman | The husband was accused of harassing his wife but was acquitted. |
| Section 32, Indian Evidence Act | Makes dying declarations admissible as evidence in court | The entire case mainly depended upon multiple dying declarations. |
| Section 313 Cr.P.C. | Gives accused an opportunity to explain evidence against him | The High Court noted that important dying declaration contents were not properly put to the accused. |
| Section 145, Indian Evidence Act | Allows witness cross-examination using previous statements | Discussed while analysing contradictions and witness credibility |
| Section 155(3), Indian Evidence Act | Permits impeachment of witness credibility through contradictions | The court noted that the prosecution failed to challenge the child witness properly. |
| Section 162 Cr.P.C. | Governs use of police statements during trial | Referred while discussing confrontation of witnesses and previous statements |
| Section 209 Cr.P.C. | Procedure for committing serious criminal cases to sessions court | The magistrate committed the matter to the Sessions Court under this provision. |
| Section 405 Cr.P.C. | Certification of appellate judgement to lower court | The High Court directed that the acquittal judgement be certified to the trial court. |
Case Details
| Case Title | Dudekula Somaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh |
|---|---|
| Court | Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 2009 |
| Bench | Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi |
| Neutral Citation | APHC010632442009 |
| Date of Judgement | 23 April 2026 |
| For Appellant | Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy |
| For Respondent | Sri C.P. Somayaji, Additional Public Prosecutor |
Latest Legal Significance and Impact
The judgement is being viewed as an important ruling on the evidentiary value of dying declarations and the duty of courts to examine the complete chain of evidence before convicting an accused person.
The ruling also reinforces the principle that prosecution agencies cannot suppress material evidence favourable to the accused. The High Court emphasised that criminal convictions must rest on reliable and legally admissible evidence rather than assumptions or emotional considerations.
Legal experts believe the judgement may become an important precedent in future cases involving contradictory dying declarations, burn death investigations, and criminal appeals based on evidentiary inconsistencies.
