MALLELLA SHYAMSUNDER versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 29-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 597 
MALLELLA SHYAMSUNDER 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2011) 
OCTOBER 29, 2014 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 498A - Death of married 
woman due to burn injuries - Allegation that appe!lant-
husband had beaten her and set her on fire after pouring 
C 
kerosene - Further a/legation that on account of non-payment 
of balance of the promised dowry, deceased was being ii/-
treated and harassed by appellant-husband and his mother 
- Conviction of appellant - Justification - Held: Justified -
Dying declarations made by the deceased before police 
D 
official and Judicial Magistrate were confidence bearing, 
truthful, consistent and credible - Same corroborated by 
evidence of PWs-1 to 3; injuries noted in the post-mortem 
report and indifferent conduct of the appellant - Offence of 
murder clearly made out. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. Exhibits-PS and P10 - dying declarations 
are confidence bearing, truthful, consistent and credible. 
Though no corroboration is necessary, yet, there is 
F 
evidence of PWs-1 to 3 to whom also, the deceased is 
said to have narrated the incident. Significantly, the 
antemortem dermo epidermal burns are over lower half 
of face, neck and then down the body to the legs. If one 
is to pour kerosene on oneself, it is the normal human 
G 
conduct to pour it over the head, and in any case, not to 
pour it on the face sparing the head. The indifferent 
conduct of the appellant, as spoken about by PW-4, in not 
taking prompt action to move the deceased to the hospital 
597. 
H 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
• 
A is also a situation to be taken note of. There was nobody 
else in the house and, hence, it was for the appellant to 
offer explanation as to the cause of death. His theory of 
suicide, on the face of overwhelming evidence to the 
contrary, is not at all acceptable. [Para 11) [602-G; 603-F-
B H; 604-A-B] 
Lax man v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710 -
referred to. 
2. As rightly held by the Sessions Court and the High 
C Court, setting fire on another person after pouring 
kerosene is an act likely to cause death of such person. 
It is a matter of simple and common knowledge that in 
the process, the victim is likely to suffer death on account 
of the burns. Therefore, the offence of murder is complete 
o and, hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 
302 IPC is reaffirmed. [Para 13) [604-E] 
E 
Case Law Reference: 
(2002) 6 sec 11 o 
referred to 
Para 2 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1381 of2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.11.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal 
F Appeal No. 1491 of 2005. 
Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. 
D. Mahesh Babu, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishan Kumar 
G Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 1. Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire 
literally means no one at the point of death is presumed .to lie. 
H Nobody normally may lie and die for fear of meeting his maker. 
• 
MALLELLA SHYAMSUNDER v. STATE OF ANDHRA 599 
PRADESH [KURIAN, J.] 
2. Acceptability and reliability of statement made by a 
A 
person who is about to die, which statement, in common 
parlance, is known as dying declaration, has been the subject 
matter of several reported decisions of this Court and, 
therefore, it is not necessary to add one more to the same. 
However, for the purpose of understanding the first principles, 
B 
we shall refer to a Constitution Bench decision in Laxman v. 
State of Maharashtra', wherein at paragraph-3, it is held as 
follows: 
"3. The juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying 
C 
declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, 
when the party is at the point of death and when every hope 
of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is 
silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful 
consideration to speak only the truth. Notwithstanding the 
same, great caution must be exercised in considering the 
D 
weight to be given to this species of evidence on account 
of the existence of many circumstances which may affect 
their truth. The situation in which a man is on the deathbed 
is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept 
the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the 
E 
requirements of oath and cross-examination are 
dispensed with. Since the accused has no 

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