LexSURESH versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 317 : 2025 INSC 318 Suresh v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2013) 04 March 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct to uphold the conviction and life imprisonment granted by the Trial Court. Headnotes† Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Whether High Court correctly appreciated the facts and upheld the conviction of the accused — Correctness: Held: While convicting, the Trial Court mainly relied upon the evidence given by parents of the deceased and the dying declaration, which was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate — Dying declaration is an important piece of evidence and a conviction can be made by relying solely on a dying declaration alone as it holds immense importance in criminal law – However, such reliance should be placed after ascertaining the quality of the dying declaration and considering the entire facts of a given case — The deceased had given two statements which are totally different from her subsequent statement made before the Judicial Magistrate, which casts serious doubts on the veracity of the deceased’s subsequent statement, where the deceased had blamed the accused for the incident — No other evidence corroborates the deceased’s statement that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and then set her on fire — The doctor, who had examined the deceased immediately after the incident, denied the presence of the smell of kerosene in the body of the deceased when she was brought to the hospital — Reliance of prosecution on Observation Mahazar is not correct, which is itself doubtful as the seizure witness to the said Mahazar has turned hostile and there had been an inordinate delay in sending the Mahazar to Court — Where the deceased has been changing her stance and has completely * Author 318 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports turned around her statements, such a dying declaration cannot become the sole basis for the conviction in the absence of any other corroborative evidence — Total reliance on subsequent dying declaration would be misplaced – Thus, the accused deserves to be given the benefit of doubt, therefore acquitted. [Paras 11-17] Case Law Cited Uttam v. State of Maharashtra [2022] 5 SCR 863 : (2022) 8 SCC 576 – relied upon. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. List of Keywords Dying declaration not the sole basis for conviction; Failure of justice. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2013 From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. (MD) No. 178 of 2011 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Abhimanyu Singh, Amicus Curiae (Assisted by: Deepak Raj, Aravindh S.). Advs. for the Respondent: V. Krishnamurthy, A.A.G., Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Ms. Azka Sheikh, Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Danish Saifi. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The appellant before us has challenged the order dated 28.02.2012 by which the High Court of Madras has upheld the appellant’s [2025] 3 S.C.R. 319 Suresh v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police conviction and life sentence for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 12.09.2008 at around 6 pm, the appellant caused the death of his wife (‘deceased’) by pouring kerosene on her body and setting her on fire, which ultimately resulted in her death after a period of approximately three weeks in a hospital. The appellant used to reside in his house at Narayanachetti Street, Tuticorin with his wife and a 2 ½ year old son. The Mother- in-law (PW-1) and Father-in-law (PW-2) of the appellant used to reside in the street next to the appellant’s street. On the fateful day i.e., 12.09.2008 when the child of the deceased was crying, the deceased called her mother (PW-1) to pacify the child and the child was taken away by her mother (PW-1) to her house which was in the neighbourhood. Meanwhile, PW-1 and PW-2 were informed by a neighbourhood child that their daughter Sumathi (deceased) had caught fire. She was then immediately taken to a nearby hospital, and then to another hospital (American Hospital) and eventually admitted in a Government Hospital at Thoothukudi. 3. At around 9:30 pm, when police received the information, PW-9 (Head Constable) reache
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.