T.K. REDDY versus STATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 23-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
T.K. REDDY 
V. 
STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 2002 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
c 
Penal Code, 1860: Section 302: 
Murder-Charge against husband of deceased-Two dying 
declarations-One stating that her husband set her on fire and another stating 
that she set herself on fire-Presence of accused-husband at the time of incident 
contradictory to facts on record-Conviction-Correctness of-Held, it is not 
open to Court to surmise on facts and convict a person-Hence conviction 
under Section 302 /PC cannot be sustained-Evidence Act, 1872-Dying 
D declaration. 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, wife of the 
accused-appellant came out of the house with her clothes aflame. PWl and 
PW2, her neighbours extinguished the fire and took her to hospital. PW7, 
a Police Officer, recorded her statement (Exhibit P-5) and subsequently, 
E PW4, the local Magistrate also recorded the statement (Exhibit P-2) of 
the victim/d.eceased. 
F 
In Exhibit P-2, she stated that her husband had been harassing her 
for last three months and on the day of incident he set her on fire after 
pouring kerosene-oil on her body and her brother PW3 brought her to 
hospital. 
In Exhibit P-5, she stated that her husband had been harassing her 
since her marriage and on the day of incident he came in a drunken state, 
abused and beat her. She could not bear such harassment, therefore she 
G poured kerosene oil on her body and set herself on fire. Though her 
husband was present in the house he did not help her, instead her 
neighbours PWl and PW2 brought her to hospital. 
H 
Trial Court convicted the accused-husband relying on the statement 
of the deceased as per Exhibit P-2, since statement as per Exhibit P-5 was 
648 
T.K. REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. [S. RAJENDRA BABU. J.] 
649 
made when she was hopeful of her survival and wanted to shield her A 
husband but statement as per Exhibit P-2 was made when chances of her 
survival was bleak, therefore, she spoke the truth. High Court sustained 
the conviction. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that there was a time gap between 
recording of the two statements which provided ample opportunity for B 
others to influence the mind of the deceased; besides statement Exhibit 
P2 is contrary to the facts available on record. 
Allowipg the appeal, the Court 
HELD: PW! stated that when the incident occurred the appellant C 
was not in the house and he came after his wife, the deceased, was shifted 
to the hospital. The evidence given by PW2 does not disclose the presence 
of the appellant at the time of the incident and, according to him, she stated 
that the cause of incident was her destiny or fate. The statement made by 
her as per Exhibit P-2 as regards the presence of the appellant in the house D 
at the time of incident is totally belied. When these hard facts stare in the 
face it was not open to the High Court or the Trial Court to surmise on 
facts and draw an inference that the deceased made the statement as per 
Exhibit P-5 in the hope of her survival and wanted to save her husband 
from trouble. That aspect of the case finds no foundation if the whole 
evidence is considered. Therefore, the conviction made on the charge E 
against him under Section 302 !PC cannot be sustained. [651-C-F) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
538 of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.1992 of the Andhra Pradesh F 
High Court in Crl. A. No. 1992. 
A.D.N. Roo and Nirmal Chopra for the Appellant. 
Ms. T. Anamika for Guntur Prabhakar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. The appellant before us is charged with having 
committed murder of his wife Ramulamma on 23-12-1988 by pouring kerosene 
G 
on her and setting her on fire at about 1:30 p.m. in his house punishabl~ 
under Section 302 IPC. The appellant having pleaded not guilty was tried for H 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A the offence charged against him, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment 
with a fine of Rs. 1500 in default to undergo imprisonment for two months. 
The appellant is the husband of the deceased Ramulamma having married 
her about 16 years prior to the date of her death. He is a driver with the 
Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. While the appellant and the 
B deceased used to live in Shanthinagar Colony in Miryalguda Parvatha Reddy 
[PW. I] and Lakshmi Reddy [PW.2] are their neighbours. La

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