Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 175  OF 2007

KASHI VISHWANATH … APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF KARNATAKA                         … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

The  appellant,  who  is  accused  No.1,  by  this  appeal  has  challenged  the  

judgment dated 27th July, 2004 in Criminal Appeal No.347 of 2001 passed by the  

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby the High  

Court  affirmed  the  conviction  and  sentenced  imposed  by  the  trial  court  under  

Section 498-A and 302 read with 34 IPC. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, the  

High Court acquitted her of all the charges levelled against her.

2. The  appellant  along  with  other  accused  faced  charges  punishable  under  

Section 498-A and 302 read with 34 IPC. The First  Additional  Sessions judge,  

Dharwad, sitting at Hubli by his judgment dated 1st February, 2001 in Sessions  

Case No.119 of 2000, acquitted accused No.2 under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the

Page 2

2

offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC but convicted accused Nos.1 and 3  

under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 read  

with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for  

one year by each and to pay fine of  Rs.1,000/-  by each,  in default  to undergo  

further  rigorous imprisonment  for  one month,  for  offence under Section 498-A  

IPC.   They  were  sentenced  to  undergo  life  imprisonment  and  to  pay  find  of  

Rs.2,000/- by each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months  

by each for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

In appeal, the High Court by its judgment dated 27th July, 2004 allowed the  

appeal in part. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions  

Judge  as  against  accused  No.1  (first  appellant  before  the  High  Court)  for  the  

offence under Section 498-A and 302 read with 34 IPC was confirmed giving rise  

to  this  appeal  and  as  against  accused  No.2  (second  appellant  before  the  High  

Court), she was acquitted of all the charges levelled against her.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as unfurled before the trial court is as  

follows:

The  deceased,  Neelamma (alias  Leelamma)  got  married  to  the  appellant  

herein 13 years prior to the incident. The date of the incident is 14 th January, 2000.  

Out of the wedlock, they have two sons and a daughter and they were all living at  

Mantur  Road,  Ambedkar  Colony,  Hubli.  According  to  the  prosecution,  the

Page 3

3

relationship between the husband and wife was cordial till two years prior to the  

incident.  The  disruptions  started  in  the  family  on  account  of  the  appellant  

developing intimacy with one Lakshmi, who was accused No.3 and was the second  

appellant  before  the  High Court.  In  this  regard,  in  spite  of  intervention of  the  

family members of the parental house of the deceased and persistent resistance of  

the deceased, the said affair of intimacy continued.  There used to be bickering and  

quarrels between the husband and wife in this regard. Though accused No.2, the  

mother  of  the  appellant  was  living with  them,  she  never  tried  to  patch  up the  

differences between the husband and wife. Ultimately, on 14th January, 2000, at  

about 10.00 a.m. in the matrimonial home of the deceased, accused Nos.1 and 3  

doused deceased Neelamma and set her ablaze while accused No.2 was watching  

outside. On the same day in the afternoon, she was shifted to K.M.C. Hospital,  

Hubli and on admission, the Hospital authorities intimated the police who came  

into  picture  at  about  9.30-10.00  p.m.  in  the  night.  Prior  to  that,  the  Taluka  

Executive Magistrate, PW-10, recorded her statement as per Ex.P.12.  One more  

statement, Ex.P.22 – dying declaration, came to be recorded by Rayappa, Police  

Sub Inspector (PW-23), in the form of complaint in the presence of Dr. Bhimappa  

(PW-22) and during the course of treatment, deceased Neelamma succumbed to  

burns on 18th January, 2000 at about 6.15 p.m. On 15th January, 2000, at about 5.30  

p.m.,  Ashok  (PW-24),  the  Investigation  Officer  recorded  the  dying  declaration  

Ex.P.29 in the presence of Dr. Komal Prasad (PW-25). On the basis of Ex.P.22,

Page 4

4

investigation of the case commenced as against accused No.1 to 3. The kith and kin  

of the deceased are examined as Pullayya (PW.5) - maternal uncle; Eliya (PW-6) –  

father;  Grasamma  (PW-7)  –  maternal  aunt;  Padmavathi  (PW-8)  –  mother  and  

Prabhudas  (PW-9)  –  uncle  of  the  deceased.  The  purpose  of  examining  these  

witnesses  was  to  establish  harassment,  motive  and  oral  dying  declaration  

implicating  accused  Nos.1  to  3.  The  independent  witnesses,  who  were  the  

neighbours  of  the  appellant  i.e.  Mansuresh  (PW-11),  Savakka  (PW-13),  

Kanechanamma(PW-14),  (M.  Saloman)PW-15 and  Perumal  (PW-16)  were  also  

examined. Unfortunately, none of them have supported the case of the prosecution.

4. Ex.P.1, is the spot mahazar drawn in the kitchen of the matrimonial home of  

the deceased where burnt  clothes,  burnt  gunny bag,  match box,  match stick,  a  

kerosene  stove,  kerosene  can  were  found.  PW-2  and  PW-3  were  examined  to  

support the contents of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6 – mahazars seizing caste certificate and  

marriage certificate revealing the relationship and the case of  the deceased and  

accused Nos.1 and 2. Ex.P.3 is the recovery of bed sheet alleged to have been used  

by accused No.2 to extinguish the fire. Letters i.e. Ex.P8 & Ex.P9 alleged to have  

been written by the appellant to the wife and parents in law, Ex.P.5 is the seizure  

mahazar  of   letters (Exs.P.10 to P.11) alleged to have been written by the deceased  

to her parents aunt and uncle and lastly Ex.P.6 is mahazar seizure of photographs  

of the deceased revealing the burns. Peshalal (PW.4) was examined to speak the

Page 5

5

inquest over the dead body as per Ex.P.7 but turned hostile. Prabhakar (PW.21) was  

also turned hostile.  Dr.  Radha (PW.17) was the Doctor at  the casualty  ward in  

K.M.C.  Hospital  who  entered  the  details  in  M.L.C.  register  and  the  relevant  

document is at Ex.P.18. Dr. Jagadish (PW-18), conducted autopsy on the dead body  

and issued Ex.P.19, the postmortem report opining that the death of the deceased  

Neelamma was due to septicemia as a result of burns. Ex.P.20 is the sketch drawn  

by PW-19. Dr. Bhimappa (PW-22) is the Head of Department of the Burns Ward in  

whose  presence  Rayappa  (PW-23),  PSI,  Bendigeri  P.S.,  Hubli  recorded  the  

complaint as per Ex.P.22 on 14th January, 2000 and sent FIR to the Court.  

5.  As  noticed  above,  the  learned  Sessions  Court  based  on  the  oral  and  

documentary evidence held accused No.1 and 3 guilty of the offence punishable  

under Section 498-A and 302 read with 34 IPC. Accused No.2 mother-in-law of the  

deceased was acquitted of all the charges levelled against her.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution absolutely  

failed to establish any of the charges, much less, the charge under Section 302 IPC  

in view of four dying declarations brought on record which are contrary to each  

other. It was further contended that the oral declarations made before the kith and  

kin of the deceased are not at all important or relevant in the light of the four dying  

declarations. According to the learned counsel, the contents of Ex.P.18, Ex.P.12,  

Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.29,  if  looked into carefully, would indicate the purpose of so

Page 6

6

many dying declarations  coming  into  existence  i.e.  only  to  ensure  that  all  the  

accused are somehow roped in. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance  

on  the  decisions  of  this  Court  in  Mehiboobsab  Abbasabi  Nadaf  vs.  State  of   

Karnataka, (2007) 13 SCC 112, etc.  which will be referred to in this judgment at  

the appropriate stage.

7. In reply, learned counsel for the State submitted that Ex.P.18 was not a dying  

declaration  but  the  entries  in  the  M.L.C.  Register  made  immediately  on  the  

admission of the patient to the Hospital. Ex.P.12 was the actual dying declaration  

recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate (PW-10). Ex.P.22 was a complaint  

recorded by Rayappa, PSI (PW-23), in the presence of Dr. Bhimappa (PW.22) and  

further investigation was taken up. Therefore, the contents of Ex.P.12, according to  

the counsel for the State have to be taken into consideration which is the earliest  

dying declaration. He further contended that Ex.P.29 is more reliable because after  

treatment for almost a day, when the patient was physically and mentally fit, the  

same came to be recorded.

8. Learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  also  raised  doubt  

relating to contents of Ex.P.12, Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.29, the three dying declarations  

which were originally recorded in Kannada. According to the learned counsel for  

the appellant,  the deceased had no knowledge of  Kannada language and could  

speak only Telugu.  

Page 7

7

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through  

the entire material placed before us.

10. The kith and kin of the deceased who examined are: as Pullayya (PW.5) -  

maternal  uncle,  Eliya  (PW-6)  –  father,  Gracemma  (PW-7)  –  maternal  aunt,  

Padmavathi (PW-8) – mother and Prabhudas (PW-9) – uncle of the deceased. Their  

deposition corroborates the case of the prosecution that one or two years prior to  

the death of the deceased, everything seemed to be cordial between the husband  

and  wife  (deceased).  After  the  appellant  joined  the  Railway  services  on  

compassionate  ground   after  the  death  of  his  father,  the  bickering and quarrel  

commenced because of developing intimacy with a co-worker by name Lakshmi  

who was the third accused. Ex.P.8 to P.11 are inland letters produced by the uncle  

and father of the deceased, PW-5 and PW-6 and the letters pertaining to the year  

1995  written  by the  deceased  which  say  that  except  some harassment  and  ill-

treatment, there was no serious harassment to the deceased at the hands of her  

husband and mother-in-law of the deceased. The letter written in the year 1999  

only would indicate  that  on account  of  the appellant  developing intimacy with  

Lakshmi, he ill-treated and harassed her to the maximum extent possible. Accused  

No.2, mother-in-law was only a spectator. This was her complaint or depression  

recorded in her letters written to the kith and kin.

Page 8

8

11. When we look into the statement of independent witnesses produced by the  

prosecution, who are neighbours of the appellant i.e. Mansuresh (PW-11), Savakka  

(PW-13), Kanechanamma(PW-14), (M. Saloman)PW-15 and Perumal (PW-16), we  

find that none of them have supported the case of the prosecution.  

12. In this case, we have noted that there is no eye-witness to the incident in  

question.  The  prosecution  primary  relies  on  three  dying  declarations  Ex.P.12,  

Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.29. In support of those Exhibits the prosecution relied on the  

statements of  Tahsildar,  Hubli  (PW-10),  Dhanjaya Kumar,  PG student  (PW-20)  

present at the time of arrival of Maharudrappa, Tahasildar (PW-10) to the Burns  

Ward. Dr. Radha (PW-17) who examined the deceased, Dr. Jagdish (PW-18),  who  

was  working  as  Medical  Officer  on  14th January,  2000  and  conducted  the  

postmortem,  Dr.  Bhimappa (PW-22),  in  whose  presence  Ex.P.22 was recorded,  

Rayappa  (PW-23),  PSI,  Bendigeri  Police  Station,  Crime  Branch,  Hubli  who  

recorded the dying declaration  (Ex.P.22) and registered the case, Dr. Komal Prasad  

(PW-25), in whose presence Ex.P.29 was recorded, etc.

In  Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 13 SCC   

112, having noticed multiple dying declarations this Court held:

“7. Conviction can indisputably be based  on a dying declaration. But before it can  be acted upon, the same must be held to  have been rendered voluntarily and  truthfully. Consistency in the dying

Page 9

9

declaration is the relevant factor for  placing full reliance thereupon. In this  case, the deceased herself had taken  contradictory and inconsistent stand in  different dying declarations. They,  therefore, should not be accepted on  their face value. Caution, in this  behalf, is required to be applied.”

13.  We will now examine the contents of three different dying declarations i.e.  

Ex.P.12, Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.29 and the related prosecution witnesses who deposed in  

support of such dying declarations.  

Maharudrappa  (PW-10),  Tahasildar,  Hubli  recorded  dying  declaration  

Ex.P.12, at 8.30 p.m. on 14th January, 2000 in Ward No.202, The deceased stated  

that  she was conscious to give answer the questions.  She got  married with the  

appellant at the age of 26 years, about 13 years back.  She had two sons and one  

daughter. She was a housewife and her husband was working in Railways and used  

to come home once in a week. She was staying at Mantur Road, Ganesh Pet, Hubli.  

She stated that she had been brought at KMC Hospital, Hubli by her mother-in-

law, Smt. Polamma by auto rickshaw, after she being sustained burn injuries at  

about 8.30 a.m.  in her residence. At about 12 p.m. she had been admitted there for  

treatment by her mother-in-law. Her husband had not come to see her after the  

incident.  Her mother-in-law was accompanying her in the Hospital.  She further  

stated that her husband (appellant herein) had illicit relations with one Lakshmi.

Page 10

10

Every week he used to come home and for one or the other reason, used to fight  

and beat her ruthlessly. Her mother-in-law used to keep quiet without objecting for  

such acts of her son. It is stated in Ex.P.12 on the said date (14th January, 2000) at  

about 8.30 a.m., when her children had gone out of the residence, her husband  

had a fight with her and instigated her to pour kerosene upon her body. She  

poured the kerosene on her body and her husband further poured kerosene  

upon her and put on fire with match box.  At that time her mother-in-law was  

out of the residence. When the flame was catching her sari and burning her body,  

her husband has not tried to douse the fire. Neighbouring people rushed to her  

residence on hearing her screams and doused the fire by pouring water. Thereafter,  

her  mother-in-law  had  brought  her  to  the  Hospital  by  auto  and  admitted  for  

treatment. Both her husband and Lakshmi are responsible for her condition.  In the  

bottom of the Ex.P.12 where thumb impression of the victim is taken it is written  

“read over and accepted to be correct".

14. The Tahasildar (PW-10) in his statement stated that while he was working as  

Tahasildar in Hubli, on 14th January, 2000 at 7.25 p.m., he received a requisition  

from Town Police Station, Hubli, to record dying declaration of Neelamma wife of  

Kashi  Vishwanath  Murari.  He  had  recorded  the  dying  declaration  of  the  said  

Neelamma on 14th January, 2000 from 8.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. Doctor opined that  

she was in condition to give dying declaration. He put the questions to Neelamma

Page 11

11

and  she  answered.  After  recording  it,  it  was  read  over  to  her.  Admitting  its  

contentions she put  her  thumb impression on it  and Doctor also singed.  Dying  

declaration  is  marked  at  Ex.P.12,  and  the  signatures  of  witness  is  marked  at  

Ex.P.12(a).

15. Dr. Dhanjaya Kumar (PW-20), who was working as P.G. student in K.M.C.  

Hubli stated that on 14th January, 2000 at about 8.30 p.m. Tahasildar, Hubli came to  

K.M.C. Ward No.202. He was on duty there. The Tahasildar asked him about the  

patient’s condition. He examined the patient and she was fit to give statement. The  

Tahasildar recorded the statement of the injured and he examined again and found  

her alright. He was present when Tahasildar recorded the statement of the injured.  

He had also signed on that statement. The signatures of the witness are marked at  

Ex.P.12(b) and the certificate of the witness is marked at Ex.P.12(c). In the cross-

examination he stated that Dr. A.S. Bekanalkar, Unit Chief did not give anything in  

writing asking him to be present  and examine the injured lady. The Tahasildar,  

Hubli did not give requisition in writing with a request to be present there and  

examine that injured lady. He has not given in writing separately about the fitness  

condition of injured Neelamma. From 8.00 a.m. he was on duty in Ward No.202 of  

K.M.C. on 14th January, 2000. He had not given treatment to Neelamma but his  

colleague  had  given  treatment.  On  Ex.P.12,  it  is  not  specifically  written  that  

Neelamma was examined twice.  He specifically, stated that he can understand

Page 12

12

Kannada  language.  He  does  not  know  Telugu  language.  Neelamma  was  

talking in Telugu language.  He further stated that it is incorrect to suggest that at  

that time Neelamma was not in fit condition.

16. The second dying declaration is Ex.P.22 recorded by the PSI, Bendigeri P.S.,  

Hubli  at  9.45  p.m.  on  14th January,  2000.  In  the  said  dying  declaration,  the  

deceased disclosed her name and address as Neelamma @ Lilamma w/o Kashi  

Vishwanath  of  Mantoor  Road,  Ambedkar  Colony,  Hubli.  She  along  with  her  

husband-Kashi  Vishwanath,  mother-in-law-Polamma,  and  her  children-Sandya,  

Prasanna and Naveen were staying at home. Her husband had illicit and immoral  

relation  with  one  Laxmi,  who has  been  working  as  sweeper  in  Railways.  Her  

husband and mother-in-law used to quarrel with her and on 14 th January, 2000 at  

about  10.00 a.m.  her husband started quarreling with her at  the  behest  of  

Laxmi and along with Laxmi poured Kerosene on her body and put on fire by  

using match stick. She further stated that she could not put her signatures since  

her hand was completely burnt. In the bottom of it, it was mentioned that dying  

declaration was “read over and accepted to be correct”

17. Rayappa, PW.23, PSI, Bendigeri, P.S. Hubli who recorded dying declaration  

Ex.P.22 stated that while he was working as PSI, Bendigeri Crime Branch on 14th  

January,  2000 as  the Police  Inspector  gave  an  order  and directed  me to  go to  

K.M.C. and record statement of Neelamma. He went to KMC Hubli at 9.45 p.m.

Page 13

13

and  gave the order to the Doctor. Doctor opined that she was in condition to give  

statement. He recorded the statement of Neelamma in the presence of Doctor. The  

statement is Ex.P.22. He has signed on it and Doctor has also signed on Ex.P.22.

18. Dr. Bhimappa (PW.22), Medical Officer, District Hospital Bagalkot stated  

that  on  14th January,  2000  he  was  Medical  Officer  in  K.M.C.,  Hubli.  On  14th  

January, 2000 he was on duty in K.M.C. Bendigeri Police recorded the statement  

of injured. The statement is marked at Ex.P.22. It bears his signatures at Ex.22(a).  

The injured  was in  a  position  to  give  statement.   Ex.P.22 was recorded in  his  

presence. In cross-examination he accepted that the Police Officer of Bendigeri  

P.S. had not given any requisition in writing requesting him to be present while  

recording such statements. He further accepted that on Ex.P.22 he had not endorsed  

that Neelamma was in fit condition to give statement.  He further stated that he  

was not aware whether Neelamma was talking in Telugu.  

19. Padmavathi (PW-8), coolie by occupation, is the mother of Neelamma. She  

stated  that  after  marriage  of  the  appellant  and  her  daughter,  Neelamma,  their  

relationship was good, later appellant used to complain that Neelamma had not  

brought  any  dowry.  Neelamma  was  complaining  that  she  was  ill  treated  and  

harassed by the appellant and he was intending to marry another woman. They  

convened a Panchayat and advised the appellant. Even after advice harassment was  

continued. Her daughter was beaten 2-3 times, and she left her matrimonial home

Page 14

14

and  resided  with  her  mother.  The  appellant  took  her  back  to  his  house.  The  

appellant was suspecting her daughter. She stated that Pullayya had phoned her  

about the incident. She along with her husband, son-in-law came to Hubli. When  

they went to K.M.C. Neelamma was talking properly, when they asked Neelamma  

she told that accused No.1(appellant) to 3 closed the door of the house, accused  

No.3 poured kerosene and accused No.1 set her on fire. Accused No.2, mother-in-

law was outside the house, closing the door. During her cross-examination, PW-8,  

specifically stated that Neelamma did not know correct writing in Telugu but  

she used to write some Telugu. She had some written letters which have been  

given  to  the  police.  She  does  not  know that  those  letters  were  written  by  

Neelamma or not.

20. The contents of the third dying declaration – Ex.P.29 was recorded by the  

Bendigeri Police on 15th January, 2000 in the presence of  Dr. Komal Prasad (PW-

25),  a  P.G.  student  in  KMC,  Hubli.  In  the  said  dying  declaration  (Ex.P.29),  

deceased  Neelamma stated  that  she  had  been  residing  at  the  above-mentioned  

address,  i.e.,  Mantur  Road,  Ambedkar  Colony,  Hubli  along  with  her  husband,  

mother-in-law, Polamma, and three children. She was a house wife. Her husband  

Vishwanath was working in SNI Division, Railways at present employed at Karat.  

Often he visited the house.  Two days prior i.e. Thursday, 13th January, 2000, she  

was confronted and slapped on the right cheek by one Laxmi of Mantur Road,

Page 15

15

Hanchandra Colony, who had illicit relation with her husband. She returned to her  

house  having  decided  to  inform  about  the  incident  to  her  husband.  She  had  

informed her husband about the incident when he came to house at 7.30 p.m. on  

the same day.  Then he  had scolded,  thrashed her  by saying that  why you had  

spoken to Laxmi. She kept quiet.  Next morning i.e. Friday, 14th January, 2000  

while she was cleaning the utensils, her husband came along with Laxmi, and  

thrashed her by saying that what can she do if  he kept Laxmi in the said  

house. Then he dragged her inside the house and closed the door. Her mother-

in-law also supported her husband and went outside. At that time Laxmi was  

inside  the  house.  Her husband poured  kerosene  on  her and Laxmi lit  the  

match stick and thrown on her body, due to the flames, fire spread all over her  

body, she rushed outside the house screaming for help. Then neighbours and  

workers who were at site came and doused the fire by wrapping her body with  

blanket. After being scolded by the neighbours her mother-in-law had taken  

her to KMC Hospital by auto. The incident took place at around 10.00 a.m.  

She further stated that she had been harassed and tormented quite often by  

her husband and mother-in-law since one year and Laxmi was responsible for  

the said incident. She further stated that she could not put her signatures since  

her  hand  was  burnt.  Her children  had  been  to  school  at  the  time  of  the  

incident. Below the dying declaration it was written that the same was “read  

over & accepted to be correct”.

Page 16

16

21. Dr. Komal Prasad (PW-25), in his statement stated that on 15th January, 2000  

he was on duty in K.M.C. Hubli. Bendigeri Police Officer had come to KMC on  

15th January, 2000 and asked his opinion about the fit condition of one Neelamma  

injured to give statement. He examined her, and stated that she was in fit condition  

to give statement.  Police Officer recorded her statement in his presence and he had  

also signed on that statement.  The statement is Ex.P.29. The signature of witness is  

marked  at  Ex.P.29(a).  The  statement  was  recorded  at  5.25  p.m.  In  his  cross-

examination, he stated that Neelamma had sustained burn injuries nearly 90 to 95  

per cent. She was admitted on previous day and it was 1 ½ day when he gave his  

opinion. She was given with sedative injunction.   

22. Dr. Radha (PW.17), Assistant Surgeon, KMC, Hubli, in her deposition stated  

that she was working as Medical Officer in KMC, Hubli. On 14th January, 2000 at  

11.45 a.m.,  she examined one Neelamma wife of Kashi Vishwanath Murari,  

who had sustained burn injuries. The history is self afflicted burns due to a  

quarrel  at  home  at  11  a.m.  with  her  husband.  Patient  was  conscious. On  

examination she noticed superficial deep burns over the lower part of face, lower  

half of chest and abdomen. Both the upper limbs and both the lower limbs were  

also burnt, sparing the face, neck, upper part of chest, parts of back in patches,  

groin and soles of the feet. She had sustained burn injuries from 70 to 75 per cent.  

Eye brows and hair of Neelamma were singed. She was admitted to female surgical

Page 17

17

ward. The patient was brought by her mother-in-law namely Polamma Venkatayya.  

In  her  cross-examination,  she  stated that  such burn injuries  are  possible  if  fire  

catches to the lower end of saree of a woman.  

23. We have noticed the three dying declarations (Ex.P.12, Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.29).  

A comparison of the three dying declarations, in our opinion, shows certain glaring  

contradictions.  In  the  first  dying  declaration  (Ex.P.12),  we  have  noticed  that  

deceased, Neelamma stated that she sustained burn injuries in the early morning at  

8.30 a.m., when her children had gone out of the residence, her husband had a fight  

with  her  and  instigated  her  to  pour  kerosene  upon  her  body.  She  poured  the  

kerosene on her body and her husband had also further poured kerosene upon her  

and  put  on  fire  match  box.  While  in  the  second  dying  declaration  (Ex.P.22),  

Neelamma (deceased) stated that her husband and mother-in-law used to quarrel  

with her and on 14th January, 2000 at about 10.00 a.m. her husband had started  

fight with her at the behest of Laxmi and along with Laxmi poured kerosene on her  

body and put on fire by using match stick. In the third dying declaration (Ex.P.29),  

Neelamma (deceased) stated that next morning i.e. Friday, 14th January, 2000 while  

she was cleaning the utensils, her husband came along with Laxmi, and thrashed  

her by saying that what can you do if he kept Laxmi in the said house. Then he  

dragged her inside the house and closed the door, her mother-in-law also supported  

her husband went outside. At that time Laxmi was inside the house. Her husband

Page 18

18

poured kerosene on her and Laxmi lit the match stick and thrown upon her body,  

due to  the flames,  fire  spread all  over  her  body,  she rushed outside the house  

screaming for help.

24. In  the  first  dying  declaration  (Ex.P.12),  she  (deceased)  stated  that  her  

husband instigated her to pour kerosene on her body, therefore,  she poured the  

kerosene on her body and her husband further poured kerosene on her and put on  

fire using a match box. In the second dying declaration (Ex.P.22), she (deceased)  

stated that her husband along with Laxmi poured kerosene on her body and put on  

fire by using match stick. In the third dying declaration (Ex.P.29), she (deceased)  

stated that her husband poured kerosene on her and Laxmi lit the match stick and  

thrown upon her body.  

25. Apart  from the  contradictions,  the  credibility  of  three  dying declarations  

(Ex.P.12,  Ex.P.22  and Ex.P.29)  is  to  be  doubted.  In  the  first  dying declaration  

(Ex.P.12) dated 14th January, 2000 the thumb impression of victim has been shown.  

Whereas in the second dying declaration (Ex.P.22) taken on the same day, i.e, 14th  

January, 2000 and the third dying declaration (Ex.P.29) given on the next day, i.e.,  

15th January, 2000, the victim had stated that she had not given her signatures since  

her hand was completely burnt.  Dr. Bhimappa (PW-22), who signed the Ex.P.22,  

in  his  cross-examination  stated  that  he  was  not  aware  whether  Neelamma  

(deceased)  was  talking in  Telugu.   Dr.  Dhanjaya  Kumar  (PW-20),  who signed

Page 19

19

Ex.P.12,  in  his  cross-examination  specifically  stated  that  he  can  understand  

Kannada but does not know Telugu language and that Neelamma was talking in  

Telugu  language.  Padmavathi  (PW-8),  mother  of  the  deceased,  in  her  cross-

examination stated that Neelamma (deceased) was not knowing the correct writing  

the Telugu. But she was writing some Telugu.  

26. The prosecution has failed to state as to why three dying declarations were  

recorded in Kannada, if the deceased, Neelamma was talking in Telugu. It has also  

not made clear as to who amongst the Tehisldar, PSI or SI or the Doctors who has  

signed in Ex.P.12, Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.29 had  knowledge of Telugu and translated  

the same in Kannada for writing dying declarations in those exhibits and that in the  

bottom of three dying declarations it has not been mentioned that they were read  

over in Kannada and explained in Telugu that the deceased understood the contents  

of  the  same.  The  above  mentioned  facts  create  doubt  in  our  mind  as  to  the  

truthfulness of the contents of the dying declarations as the possibility of she being  

influenced by somebody in making the dying declarations cannot be ruled out.  

27. On careful perusal of the materials on record, we are unable to come to the  

conclusion  that  the  prosecution  in  this  case  has  established  its  case  beyond  

reasonable  doubt  to  base  a  conviction  on  the  appellant.  Hence,  we  are  of  the  

opinion that both the courts below have erred in coming to the contra conclusion.

Page 20

20

28. For the reasons stated above,  this appeal  succeeds and the judgment and  

conviction recorded by the courts below are set aside. The appeal is allowed.  The  

appellant, who is in jail, is directed to be released forthwith.

……………………………………………….J.      ( A.K. PATNAIK )

……………………………………………….J.               ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 3,  2013.