[NON-REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2004

KEESARI MADHAV REDDY ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. ...... RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 613 of 2006

STATE OF A.P. ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

KEESARI MADHAV REDDY & ANR. ...... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI J.

1. The judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 339 of 2004  

and 613 of 2006.  They arise from the following facts:

1.1 The deceased Keesari Kalavathi, the daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 2  

of village Kondur, was married to A1 Keesari Madhav Reddy son of the  

other  two  accused  A2  and  A3,  Keesari  Venkata  Reddy  and  Keesari  

Promila.  The marriage between the deceased and A1 was arranged with  

the efforts of P.W. 4 Peddi Reddy, the elder son-in-law of P.W. 1.  During  

the course of the settlement of the marriage P.W. 1 had agreed to pay  

Rs. 80,000/- towards dowry and also supply articles worth Rs. 6000/-  

but at the time of the pooja held at the house of the accused, P.W. 1

paid Rs. 40,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount after the  

accused and the deceased had lived happily and peacefully for about  

one  month.   The  accused  were,  however,  not  happy  with  this  

arrangement and they told the deceased to bring the balance amount  

and for that purpose would beat and abuse her and when P.W. 1 visited  

his daughter she narrated the harassment meted out to her.  P.W. 1  

thereupon brought the deceased to his house with the permission of A2  

and A3 but none of the accused made any effort to take her back to the  

matrimonial home with the result that in the first year of marriage, the  

deceased lived with her  husband only  for a month.   It  appears  that  

sometime in 1998 A1 had appendicitis whereupon P.W. 1 took him to  

Dr. Ravinder Reddy, who hospitalised A-1.  P.W. 1 also spent a huge  

amount  of  money  for  his  operation.   After  his  discharge  from  the  

hospital A1 took his wife with him to the matrimonial home, but the  

demands for  the balance amount of  dowry etc.  were renewed by the  

accused sometime in the year 1999.  P.W. 1 came to the house of his  

elder daughter P.W. 3 to find out as to why the accused were not taking  

the deceased back home.  A dispute erupted at that time between A1  

and his elder brother regarding dowry and it was decided that out of the  

Rs. 20,000/- due to A2 and A3, A1 and his elder brother would pay Rs.  

10,000/- each to clear of the dues.  This arrangement was apparently  

carried out, on which A1 and his wife stayed together at various places  

for  sometime.  It  appears  however  that  the  demands  for  dowry  still  

continued and the deceased and the couple had an on-off relationship  

                                                                  Crl. Appeal No.339/2004

2

with each other over a period of time.  On the 19th April, 2000, P.Ws. 1  

and 3 went to the house of P.W.2 where P.W.9 was also present and  

they  were  told  that  a  few  days  earlier  the  deceased  had  been  

administered  a  beating  by  the  accused  and  that  she  was  not  being  

provided any food by them. On this information P.Ws 7 and 9 called A1  

and A3 before  them and told  them not  to  misbehave  on which they  

promised that they would not harass the deceased any further.  The  

same day, however, i.e. 19th of April, 2000 A1 went to the house of P.W.  

9 and called P.Ws. 1,3 and 4 and asked for Rs. 2,000/- to purchase a  

table fan.  P.W. 1 promised to pay the said amount at a later stage.  On  

the 20th of April, 2000, at about 8:00a.m. the deceased came running  

out of her matrimonial home with burn injuries raising a hue and cry  

and fell down in front of the house.  P.W. 12 noticed the deceased with  

burn injuries and immediately rushed to the house of P.W. 3 who in  

turn rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying  

there with burn injuries.  At that time, A1 and A3 were also present  

whereas A2 was missing.  The deceased was thereafter shifted to Dr.  

Jogu Kistaiah' Hospital in an auto rickshaw.  The doctor refused to treat  

her as she was in a serious condition and they accordingly shifted her in  

a jeep to MGM Hospital, Warangal.  On the way to the hospital, P.W. 1  

enquired from the deceased as to the circumstances in which she had  

received the injuries and she stated that on the 19th of April, 2000, that  

is a day earlier, the accused had refused to give her any food and that at  

about 8:00 a.m. on the 20th of April, 2000, A2 and A3 had got hold of  

                                                                  Crl. Appeal No.339/2004

3

her and poured kerosene oil on her whereas A1 had set her fire with a  

match stick and that she rushed out crying in pain.  The deceased was  

ultimately admitted to the MGM Hospital  at about 10:25a.m. on 20th  

April, 2000 and intimation was sent to the police post in the hospital  

itself.   A  Judicial  Magistrate  was  also  deputed  to  the  hospital  for  

recording her dying declaration and he did so on the 20th April, 2000,  

Exhibit P5 between 1:30 and 1:55 p.m. In this dying declaration, the  

deceased stated that A1 had set fire to her sari in culmination of the  

harassment that had been meted out to her over the last several days.  

The injured, however, died at about 5:30p.m. on the  21st April, 2000  

and a case under Section 302 was, accordingly registered against the  

three accused.  On the completion of the investigation the accused were  

charged for offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 302 read with  

Section  34  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  and  Section  6  of  the  Dowry  

Prohibition Act, 1961.  The trial court relied primarily on the evidence of  

P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, the parents of the deceased, P.W. 3 the sister of the  

deceased, P.W. 4, the sister's husband, who had deposed that he was  

instrumental in arranging the marriage between A1 and the deceased on  

31.05.1997,  P.W.  5  the  mother  of  P.W.  4  and  P.W.  9  a  witness  to  

support the proceedings of the Panchayat held on the 6th April, 2000,  

and to the incident of 19th April, 2000 in which an effort had been made  

to  settle  the  dispute  between  the  deceased  and  her  in  laws  and  to  

support the demands for dowry, and the actual incident of 20th April,  

2000.   The  Court  also  relied  on   the  evidence  of  P.W.  17  Dr.  

                                                                  Crl. Appeal No.339/2004

4

Hanumantha Rao, the doctor who had performed the autopsy on the  

dead  body  and  the  Judicial  Magistrate  First  Class,  PW-15  who  had  

recorded the dying declaration Exhibit P5.   

2. The trial court relying on the aforesaid evidence held that the  

case against the accused had been proved beyond doubt and they were  

liable to conviction under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 302 read with  

Section 34 IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition  

Act.  The trial court observing that the conduct of A1 in particular, had  

been reprehensible awarded him a sentence of death under Section 302  

of  the  IPC  whereas  accused  Nos.  A2  and  A3  were  sentenced  to  life  

imprisonment with fine.  All the accused were also sentenced to various  

terms of imprisonment under the Sections under the other provisions  

under which they had been found guilty.  Two criminal appeals were  

thereafter filed in the High Court; one appeal by A1 and the second by  

A2  and  A3  whereas  a  reference  for  the  confirmation  of  the  death  

sentence was also made to the High Court.   The High Court  by the  

impugned judgment set aside the conviction of all the accused for the  

offence under Section 302 and 302/34 and they were acquitted of that  

charge and a sentence of ten years was imposed on A1 under Section  

304B.  The conviction of A1 under Section 498A was also upheld but no  

separate sentence was awarded.  A2 and A3 were, however, ordered to  

be  acquitted  with  respect  to  all  charges.   The judgment  of  the  High  

Court has resulted in two appeals before this Court, one at the instance  

of A1 and the other by the State of A.P. impugning the acquittal of A2  

                                                                  Crl. Appeal No.339/2004

5

and A3 and also praying that A1 was liable for the offence under Section  

302 of the IPC.

3. We have  heard  the  learned counsel  for  the  parties  and gone  

through the record.  It will be seen that the High Court has not really  

disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 1 and the others or the evidence with  

regard to the demands of dowry made over a period of time and the  

harassment  meted  out  to  the  deceased  by  A1  in  particular.   The  

evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the aspect of dowry and harassment has  

been  supported  by  the  evidence  of  independent  witnesses  including  

those of the Panchayat and the mediators who had tried to sort out the  

differences between the deceased and her husband and in-laws.  The  

High Court has, however, found that the dying declaration Exhibit P5  

which had been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate was a suspicious  

document and could not be relied upon.  It has been pointed out that in  

the oral dying declaration which the deceased had made to P.Ws. 1 to 5  

when she was being taken to the hospital, the story was that kerosene  

oil had been poured on her by A3 in the presence of A2 and that A1 had  

thereupon lit the match and set her on fire but in the dying declaration  

which had been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Exhibit P5, there  

was no reference to the pouring of kerosene oil on her.  The High Court  

was, therefore, of the opinion that this apparent discrepancy went to the  

root of the matter, the more so as there was no smell of kerosene oil on  

                                                                  Crl. Appeal No.339/2004

6

the dead body and no receptacle which could have carried kerosene oil  

had been found when the police officer had examined the site of the  

incident.  The High Court also observed that in Exhibit P7, that is the  

medico-legal examination of the deceased prior to her death, it had been  

noted that the injuries had been caused in an attempted suicide and the  

Court, accordingly, inferred that this information must have been given  

to the doctor either by the deceased herself or by her father who had  

reached the hospital in the meanwhile.  The High Court also concluded  

that in the light of the fact that the First Information Report had been  

recorded about 17 hours after the death of the deceased, it appeared  

that there was some suspicion about the prosecution story.  The High  

Court, accordingly, set aside the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC  

recorded with respect to A1 and upheld his conviction under Section  

304B of the IPC and awarded him a sentence of ten years with the other  

parts of the sentence being maintained as per the direction of the trial  

court.  A2 and A3, however, were acquitted in toto.

4. We are of the opinion, however, that some of the observations  

made by the High Court are not justified on facts.  It has to be noted  

that the instances of harassment of the deceased had gone on for almost  

three years right from the marriage up to her death and for this purpose  

there is evidence not only of the parents or the sister of the deceased but  

independent witnesses as well.  Repeated attempts by her parents and  

the others to get the accused to relent with respect to their demands  

had remained unsuccessful and the harassment continued unabated.  

                                                                  Crl. Appeal No.339/2004

7

The primary evidence in this case is the dying declaration Exhibit P5.  

This had been recorded by PW-15 J. Ramamurthy Additional Magistrate  

First Class on the 20th April, 2000. This statement was recorded in the  

presence of Dr. Karunakar Reddy who certified that she was fit to make  

a statement.  In this dying declaration, the deceased clearly stated that  

her husband A1 was always abusing her and that she had been set afire  

by him.  PW-15 also stated that the dying declaration had been recorded  

after the  doctor had given a certificate of fitness.    It is true that there  

is no reference whatsoever to the fact that kerosene oil had been poured  

on her but we have absolutely no reason to doubt the statement made  

by the deceased and recorded by a Magistrate.  We also see that insofar  

as A2 and A3 are concerned she clearly did not say anything about their  

involvement with the burning incident on the 20th of April, 2000.  It is  

equally  relevant  that  P.W.  15  also  deposed  that  the  parents  of  the  

deceased were not around at the time when the dying declaration had  

been recorded by him.  In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion  

that the observation of the High Court that a case under Section 302 of  

the IPC was not made out against A1 does not appear to be correct.  We,  

accordingly,  dismiss  Criminal  Appeal  No.  339  of  2004  filed  by  the  

accused A1 and allow the appeal filed by the State of A.P. - Criminal  

Appeal No. 613 of 2006 and order that A1 was liable to be convicted  

under  Section  302  of  the  IPC.   We,  accordingly,  award  him  a  life  

sentence under that provision.  The acquittal of A2 and A3 is, however,  

maintained.  

                                                                  Crl. Appeal No.339/2004

8

……….......................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

…………………..........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR.  

PRASAD] FEBRUARY 4, 2011 NEW DELHI.

                                                                  Crl. Appeal No.339/2004

9