B. SHASHIKALA versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 940 · Decided: 22-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B. SHASHIKALA 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
JANUARY 22, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND S.S. SINHA, JJ.] 
Criminal Law: 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 32(/)-Dying Declaration-Recording of 
C in translated form-Statement being recorded by Muns if Magistrate in the 
presence of a doctor who translated the questions put by the Magistrate into 
Hindi and translated the answers given by deceased into English-Statement 
being so recorded was read over and explained to deceased by the doctor 
which she admitted to be true and correct-Admissibility of-Held, the dying 
· D declaration was recorded fairly and correctly, and there was no infirmity 
therein-What was necessary in such situation was working knowledge in 
Hindi-Munsif Magistrate and the doctor may not be able to speak or write 
chaste Hindi but evidently they understood the statement of the deceased in 
Hindi. 
E 
Evidence-Appreciation of -
Bride burning-Sister-in-law and mother-in-law setting the bride afire--
Contention that the deceased suffered injury as a result of an accident and 
there being an endorsement to that effect-Held, the likelihood of such a 
statement having been recorded at the instance of accused-appellant cannot 
F be ruled out-Had it been a case of suicide and not homicide, deceased would 
not have rushed out of the door with flames on her person-Record showing 
only the neighbours coming to her rescue and putting out the fire-Accused 
not making any attempt to save the deceased although they were present at 
the scene of occurrence-No infirmity found in the conviction of the accused-
G Penal Code, S. 302. 
H 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 299, Explanation 2; 302; 304, Part I; 307; 
498A-A woman set on fire by her sister-in-law and mother-in-law resulting 
in her death-Conviction by Trial Court under Section 302-High Court 
altering the conviction and sentence to Section 304 Part II on the ground that 
940 
i '. 
B. SHASHIKALA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
941 
• 1 
it was possible that the deceased might have died due to untime and improper A 
medicines given by doctors in the hospital in the absence of any explanation 
that the deceased was treated by an able doctor during her stay in the hospital-
Held such an approach is wholly unwarranted being contrmy to Explanation 
2 appended to Section 299-Such findings of High Court being based on 
surmises and conjeclllres and not on any materials on record-However, in B 
~ 
. 
the absence of any appeal by State, the same not interfered with-Practice 
and Procedure. 
Deceased was married to PW 2 about 8 months prior to the incident. 
She was abused and harassed by the sister and mother of her husband. 
The deceased and her husband started residing separately from the rest c 
of the family in the same house about three months prior to the death of 
the deceased. On the date of occurrence, appellant and her mother entered 
into the room of the deceased in the afternoon. Appellant poured kerosene 
on the deceased and her mother closed her mouth whereafter the deceased 
was set on fire. The deceased rushed outside with flames on her person 
shouting for help. Two neighbours came to her help and doused the flames D 
by pouring water and took her to the Railway ,Hospital. The doctor who 
.. 
attended upon her found 85% burns in total with charring seen all over 
y 
the body. 
While the deceased was in the Railway Hospital, her statement was E 
recorded by the Head Constable of the concerned Police station on the 
basis of which a case under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC, 1860 was 
registered. Dying Declaration of the deceased was also recorded by an 
Additional Sub-Judge with the help of the doctor treating the deceased 
who translated the questions put by him into Hindi and translated the 
answers given by the deceased into English. The victim succumbed to her F 
>· 
injuries. Thereafter a charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against 
I.he appellant and accused no.3 as in the meanwhile, accused no. I i.e. 
mother of appellant died. The appellant was held guilty of charges under 
Section 302 IPC by the Sessions J.udge, while accused no.3 was acquitted. 
On appeal, the High Court altered the conviction and sentence from one G 
under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC on the ground that it was 
possible that the deceased might have died due to untime and improper 
y 
medicines given by the doctors in the hospital in the absence of any 
explanation that the deceased was treated by an able doctor during her 
stay

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.