LELLA SRINIVASA RAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 659 · Decided: 26-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

--
LELLA SRINIV ASA RAO 
v. 
ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
FEBRUARY 26, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 306 and 498-A-Prosecution case that wife 
committed suicide along with her 1 112 years old daughter owing to cruelty 
A 
B 
and harassment meted out to her by her husband and his mother-Two C 
inconsistent dying declarations recorded-Complicity of husband disclosed 
only in the second declaration-No allegation by wife's father and other 
relatives with regard to torture and harassment-According to them there was 
some misunderstanding between husband and wife-Wife annoyed with the 
fact of bringing up children of her husbands' deceased sister by her ~usband's 
family-Conviction of husband and his mother under sections 498-A and 306- D 
High Court upheld conviction under section 498-A but set aside conviction 
under section 306-0n appeal Held: Act causing annoyance to wife cannot 
be equated with cruelty and harassment-Also dying declaration inconsistent 
and no other evidence to prove allegation of cruelty and harassment meted 
out to wife-Hence, conviction under section 498-A set aside-Evidence Act, 
1872-Sections 3 and 32. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Section 32-Two dying declaration-inconsistency betwe_en-Evidentiary 
value of-Held: It is not safe to act solely on such declarations to convict the 
accused 
Section 3-Hostile witness-Testimony--Evidentiary value of-Held: 
Their evidence does not automatically get rejected-If the evidence finds 
. corroboration from the facts of the case, it may be taken into account while 
judging the guilt of the accused 
According to the prosecution, appellant-husband and his mother treated 
the wife with such cruelty and harassed her to such extent that the wife 
E 
F 
G 
.,......... 
committed suicide. She set herself and her 1 1/2 year old daughter to fire and 
later both of them succumbed to their injuries on the same day. This incident 
659 
I-I 
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A took place about 3 years after their marriage. Wife was taken to the hospital 
where two dying declarations were recorded. First dying declaration was 
recorded by the Magistrate in which the general allegation of harassment was 
made against the mother-in-law and second dying declaration was recorded 
after 5 minutes by the Head Constable in which allegation of harassment was 
B against husband as well as his mother and immediate cause for suicide was 
harassment meted out to her by husband-appellant. Appellan~-husband and 
his mother were charged under Section 498-A and 306 IPG. Prosecution 
examined father of the deceased and other members of the family. They did 
not support the prosecution case but disclosed that there. was 
misunderstanding between appellant and deceased on account of the fact that 
C the children of a deceased sister of the appellant were being brought up by 
appellant's family. Trial Court finding the two dying declarations consistent 
and supplementing each other, convicted and sentenced appellant and his 
mother under.se.ctions 498-A and 306 WC. High Court upheld the.conviction 
and sentence under section 498-A however, set aside the conviction under 306 
D IPC. Appellant and his mother filed Special Leave Petitions. SLP of the mother 
was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that there was no necessity for the Head Consta~le 
to record another dying d~claration when the Magistrate ha~ already rec.orded 
the dying declaration; and that the deceased in her first dying declaration 
E did not accuse the appellant of having caused harassment or cruelty to her 
and as such there is no justification for convicting the appellant under Section 
498-A IPC. 
~llowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. In the first dying declaration there is no mention about the 
appellant having treated the deceased with cruelty or of his having caused 
harassment to the deceased. In fact, his name does not find place in the 
relevant portion of the first dying declaration. The first dying declaration was 
reco.rded by a Magistrate after taking all necessary precautions. The deceased 
was in a position to make a statement which was certified by the treating 
G physician who was also present when the statement was recorded. Only 5 
minutes thereafter another statement was recorded by the Head Constable 
and in .th~t dying declaration allegations have been made against the appellant 
I t 
and facts stated relating to the immediate cause

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