LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

DASARI PEDA GONDIYYA versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, JANGREDDYGUDEM

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 1094 · Decided: 12-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 1094 
DASARI PEDA GONDIYYA 
v. 
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, JANGREDDYGUDEM 
(Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2007) 
NOVEMBER 12, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYATAND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA~ JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - .s.302 - Homicidaldeath due to 
C burns - Deceased was mistress of the accused - Multiple 
dying declarations - Conviction by Courts below - On appeal, 
held: Deceased gave consistent dying dfJc/arations before her 
mother, the Manda/ Revenue Officer and the Sub-Inspector 
__ 
of Police pointing out that the accused was responsible for her 
D burns - There were reasons as to why aqcused set her on fire 
- Factual scenario leaves no manner of-doubt that accused-
appellant was responsible for causing homicidal death of the 
deceased - Conviction . accordingly upheld - Evidence Act, 
1872- s.32. 
E 
According to the prosecution, Appellant killed his 
mistress by pouring kerosene oil on her and thereafter 
setting her on fire. Both Trial Court and High Court 
convicted the Appellant under s.302 IPC placing reliance 
upon the dying declarations made by the deceased 
F before her mother (PW1), the Mandal Revenue Officer 
(PW6) and the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW10). Hence the 
present appeal. 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The dying declarations· given by the 
deceased to her mother (PW-1 ), the statement recorded 
by PW-10 and the dying declaration recorded by Mandal 
Revenue Officer (PW-6) clearly establish that the 
1094 
DASARJ PEDA GONDIYYA v. STATION HOUSE 
1095 
......._ 
OFFICER, JANGREDDYGUDEM 
-,._ 
deceased gave a consistent version in the dying 
A 
declarations pointing out that the accused was 
responsible for her burns. There were reasons as to why 
accused set her on fire. [Para 3] [1097-H; 1098-A] 
2. The factual scenario leaves no manner of doubt 
B 
that the accused was responsible for causing homicidal 
death of the deceased. Judgments of the Trial Court and 
""' 
High Court do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant 
interference. [Para 4] (1098-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal c 
No. 1162 of 2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.12.2006 of the 
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in 
Criminal Appeal No. 942 of 2005. 
D 
. -1 
Harinder Mohan Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Durgesh Yadav 
.and Manav Bajaj for the Appellant. 
Altaf Fathima and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
E 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence 
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 
F 
(in short the 'IPC'). The accused was charged for allegedly 
killing of Thirupathamma (hereinafter referred to as the 
'deceased') by pouring kerosene and burning her at 10.00 p.m. 
on 29.10.2000 at the house in which she was kept by him as 
his mistress. 
G 
2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: 
The deceased was the wife of one Narsaiah and he left 
her after the birth of a female child and therefore the deceased 
H 
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A used to live with her parents. She developed illicit intimacy with 
the accused three years prior to the date of occurrence. The 
accused kept the deceased in a thatched hut separately and 
started living with her. The accused used to drink ID arrack and 
beat the deceased by suspecting her character. On 29.10.2000 
B at about 6.30 p.m. the accused quarrelled with the deceased 
by suspecting her fidelity, beat her and abused her in filthy 
language and went away. At about 10.00 p.m. the accused 
returned to the house in drunken state, picked up the kerosene 
tin, poured kerosene on the deceased while she was lying on 
c the cot and set fire to her person and fled away from the house 
by bolting the door from outside. When the deceased raised 
cries, the neighbours came there and found the accused 
running away from the house. They opened the door, 
extinguished the flames and took the deceased to the hospital. 
0 
On receipt of requisition from the hospital, the Sub Inspector 
of Police (PW-10) reached the hospital, recorded the statement 
of the deceased and registered a crime under Section 307 
IPC. The Mandal Revenue Officer recorded the dying 
declaration of the deceased. Wh.en the motherof the deceased. 
(PW-1) questioned the deceased she stated that the accused 
E was responsible for 

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