ONGOLE RAVIKANTH versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 155 · Decided: 17-06-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.> :( 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 155 
ONGOLE RAVIKANTH 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 840-841 of 2003) 
JUNE 17, 2009 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
A 
B 
s.304(part-I) - In the course of quarrel, wife fetched C 
kerosene and a match box and poured kerosene on herself 
- Husband lit the match stick resulting in fire - Death of wife 
by bum injuries - Conviction of husband by trial court u/s 324 
- Altered by High Court into s.304(part-li- Held: Accused 
knew that deceased was drenched with kerosene yet he 
indulged in the cruel act of lighting the match stick - It cannot D 
be said that he was not aware that his act was likely to cause 
serious bum injuries to deceased - Since State has not filed 
appeal against acquittal of accused uls 302, the lenient view 
taken by High Court in convicting the accused u/s 304 (part-
/) with 7 years R.I. affirmed - Dying declaration. 
E 
EVIDENCE 
Dying declaration - Conviction based on - Held : A dying 
declaration can form the sole basis for conviction - In the 
instant case statement was voluntarily made without any 
coercion or tutoring by anyone - It was natural and coherently 
made by deceased in a fit state of mind - There is no reason 
not to accept the dying declaration. 
F 
The appellant faced trial for commission of offences 
G 
punishable uls 498-A and 302 IPC. The prosecution case 
was that after about one and a half years of the marriage 
of the appellant, differences arose between the couple 
because of the wayward habits of the appellant resulting 
155 
H 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A in frequent quarrel. On the specified night a quarrel took 
place between the couple. The wife, hurt by the behaviour 
i 
of the husband, went to the kitchen and fetched kerosene 
--
and a match box. She poured kerosene on herself. The 
appellant-husband snatched the match box from her and 
B lit a match stick as a result of w'1ich her clothes caught 
fire. She was taken to the hospital with 60% burn injuries. 
Later, she succumbed to her injuries. The trial court 
convicted the appellant u/s 324 IPC. On appeal, the High 
Court converted the conviction into one u/s 304 (part-I) 
c IPC and sentenced the accused to 7 years R.I. 
In the instant appeals filed by the accused, it was 
contended for the appellant that according to the 
prosecution case itself, it was the deceased who poured 
kerosene on herself and came with a match box. It was 
D submitted that in the circumstances the High Court erred 
• 
in convicting the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. The incident took place in the house of 
the appellant. PW-4, the father of the appellant, stated in 
his evidence that the deceased rushed out of the 
bedroom crying loudly. He extinguished the fire by 
pouring water on the deceased and covered her with a 
bed sheet. The prosecution case rests upon the dying 
)I -
F declaration (Ext.P-4) recorded by PW-2, the Judicial 
Magistrate. [Para 8] [162-8-D] 
1.2. The deceased in her dying declaration stated that 
the appellant used to quarrel with her whenever she 
G questioned him about his illegal and immoral activities of 
having illicit intimacy with some women. The deceased 
in clear and categorical terms stated that she poured 
~ 
kerosene on herself and it was the appellant who lit the 
match stick resulting in fire and causing 60% burn 
H 
ONGOLE RAVIKANTH v. STATE OF A.P. 
157 
't 
injuries which ultimately led to her death. The appellant A 
instead of preventing the deceased from pouring· 
" 
kerosene upon herself, lit the match stick resulting in fire 
( 
and causing burn injuries. The appellant knew very well 
that the deceased was drenched with kerosene, yet, he 
indulged in the cruel act of lighting the match stick. In the 
B 
circumstances, it cannot be said that the contents in 
dying declaration (Ex.P-4) do not disclose the 
v 
commission of any offence by the appellant. It cannot be 
\. 
said that the appellant was not aware that his act was 
likely to cause the serious burn injuries to the deceased. c 
[Paras 10 and 15) [163-C-D; 165-F-H; 166-A-B] 
2.1. A dying declaration can form the sole basis for 
conviction but, at the same time, due care and caution 
must be exercised in considering the weight to be given 
D 
iin dying declaration. There is no doubt whatsoever that 
tile statement by the deceased was voluntarily made 
without any coercion or tutoring of anyone. The 
statement is natural and

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