JUPUDI SURESH VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2026 INSC 832Page 1 of 11

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

Jupudi Suresh

...Appellant

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh

...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

Two children were orphaned, when the mother died of

acute burn injuries and the father was accused of having

murdered the mother. The prosecution went to trial with the

circumstances of the constant quarrels between the couple,

which even led to the couple residing adjacent to the house of

the parents of the wife. The alleged homicidal death as coming

out from the postmortem report, two dying declarations and the

absence of an explanation under Section 106 of the husband, for

the death by burns occurred in the marital house where the

couple were residing, were the circumstances relied on by the

prosecution. The Trial Court convicted the accused and

Page 2 of 11

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

sentenced him to life imprisonment, which was affirmed by the

High Court.

2. Sri. Satinder Singh Gulati learned Counsel appearing for

the appellant/accused pointed out that there is discrepancy

insofar as the motive, which led to the appellant allegedly

murdering the deceased; as disclosed in the two dying

declarations, which is a material inconsistency inuring to the

benefit of the accused. It is also pointed out that the first dying

declaration was not proved, since the Head Constable who is

said to have recorded it, expired. The time shown in both the

dying declarations makes it very suspicious. The immediate

relatives of the deceased PW1 to PW3; her sister, her cousin

and her mother does not inculpate the accused in their

testimony; all of them having become hostile in Court but not

declared so. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem

clearly stated as revealed from the postmortem certificate that

the victim suffered 96% burns. It was his testimony in cross-

examination that a person who has suffered from 80 to 90%

burns would be conscious and fit to give a statement; which has

to benefit the accused. The appellant, hence, has to be

acquitted is the compelling submission.

Page 3 of 11

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

3. Ms. Prerna Singh, learned Government Advocate on the

other hand argued in favour of the conviction and sentence

awarded by two Courts, concurrently. It is argued that

discrepancies were with respect to the prior incident and not

with respect to the crime proper. It has been categorically

stated by the victim that, after the accused poured kerosene on

her, she was set ablaze. Though the Head Constable who

recorded the first dying declaration was not available, the Sub-

Inspector of the Police Station in which the Head Constable was

working had confirmed the statement. The Trial Court has

discarded the depositions of PW1 to PW3 on the ground that

they had been won over. The circumstances relied on by the

prosecution, even without any supporting testimony from the

relatives of the deceased, clearly brings home the guilt of the

accused, is the argument.

4. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments

raised and also perused the records of the case. It was on

06.05.2013 that a quarrel erupted in the house where the

deceased and accused were staying, which culminated in the

death of the deceased. It was the prosecution case that when

the deceased had gone out for work, the accused, who was

Page 4 of 11

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

habituated to alcohol, took away the money kept by the

deceased in the house. Finding that the money kept by her was

missing, the deceased questioned the accused and the

accused, enraged, poured kerosene and set ablaze his wife and

left the scene.

5. To find the homicidal death, both the Courts relied on the

post-mortem certificate, as proved by the Doctor PW11 and the

inquest report, Ex. P6 proved by PW6 (VRO). PW4 and PW5, the

witnesses to the inquest report turned hostile, which is

immaterial since PW6 affirmed it. The post-mortem certificate

clearly indicated that the deceased had sustained burns of 96%

of the surface area of the body. The burn injuries were present

over the scalp, face, neck, front and back of the chest, front and

back of both upper limbs, front and back of the abdomen, front

and back of both lower limbs and genitalia. Unburnt patches

were present only over the front of the abdomen. Looking at the

post-mortem certificate, we had a doubt as to the theory of the

accused having poured kerosene over the deceased to set her

ablaze, since the burns were present even over the scalp of the

head. The indication is more of the deceased having doused

herself with kerosene, which could have resulted in the burn

Page 5 of 11

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

injuries on the scalp of the head. However, we see that the

Doctor was not cross-examined on this aspect and there was no

question put as to whether the death was by suicide; which is

the defense coming out from the depositions of the various

witnesses. All the same, it has to be noticed that, in cross-

examination it was elicited from PW11, the Doctor who

conducted the post-mortem that only a victim sustaining burns

between 80 to 90% could speak well; which raises a suspicion

insofar as the dying declaration said to have been made by the

victim who as per the post-mortem report suffered 96%

injuries.

6. The cause of death as declared by PW10 was due to burns,

which according to us does not clearly point to a homicidal

death. Be that as it may, for the present we will take it that the

death was homicidal, despite the prosecution also having not

brought out the cause of death from PW11; as to whether it is a

suicide or a murder.

7. Now we come to the deposition of the witnesses, the close

relatives of the deceased; PW1 was her sister, PW2 - her cousin

and PW3 - her mother. All of them consistently spoke of having

reached the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries of the

Page 6 of 11

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

deceased. They saw her ablaze and attempted to put out the

fire. As per the testimony of PW2 the appellant was present,

who also tried to save the victim. There is no inculpatory

circumstance brought out in chief-examination except a quarrel

between the couple at 10pm; not sufficient to find a motive for

murder or even of a motivation to commit suicide, making the

accused an accomplice as an abettor. From the evidence of

PW1 to PW3, we have to find that there is nothing coming out on

the motive or on the incident itself or even on the absence of the

appellant from the scene of occurrence at the time of incident

that occurred.

8. We see that the High Court has brushed aside the

testimony of PW1 to PW3 on the ground that they had been won

over. Further the High court finds the story projected by PW1

to PW3, of the deceased having suffered from fits and

stomachache, as a reason for suicide, to be far-fetched. The

High Court finds that the illness projected is not sufficient to

motivate a person to commit suicide. The High Court also finds

that PW1 to PW3, won over by the accused, resiled from the

early version and also from their testimony given in the

examination-in-chief. On a reading of their testimonies, we do

Page 7 of 11

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

not find anything incriminating in their chief examination, as

against the accused. PWs 1 & 3 spoke of a quarrel at 10 pm,

while PW2 attested to the presence of the accused when the fire

was put out. In cross-examination, they all spoke of the

deceased having committed suicide for reason of the ailments.

They also spoke of the dying declarations having been made

because of the influence exerted by some local political

leaders. They spoke in one voice that there was no quarrel

between the couple.

9. The chief examination incriminates the accused only with

a quarrel, not to the extent of a long-lasting marital discord.

Even if the Court found the cross-examination to be not

credible, it was not proper for the Court to assume that the

version of PW1 to PW3 was an afterthought. Insofar as the

earlier version referred to in the impugned judgement,

obviously it is the Section 161 statements, which cannot be

relied on for convicting an accused. Their testimony before

Court is what has to be relied on for conviction or acquittal and

earlier versions have to be put to the witnesses and the

contradictions elicited as having occurred, by confirming such

Section 161 statements from the Investigating Officer (IO). PW1

Page 8 of 11

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

to PW3 were never declared hostile not were they re-examined

after they exculpated the accused in the cross-examination and

propounded the theory of suicide. The High Court egregiously

erred in finding the testimony to be contrary to their earlier

version, when neither was the earlier version put to the

witnesses nor the statements allegedly made, confronted to the

IO. PW1 to PW3 do not at all support the prosecution case.

10. Now we come to the dying declaration and in examining

the same, we first refuse to rely on the testimony of PW1 to PW3,

that local political leaders exerted influence; a bland statement

without any substantiation. The defense also did not attempt to

substantiate such statements by revealing the identity of the

local leaders and indicating their enmity towards the accused.

The dying declarations are produced along with the

convenience compilation. The dying declaration recorded by

the Head Constable was produced by PW8, a Sub-Inspector of

Police. He only states that he received the statement recorded

by the Head Constable, based on which he registered a case

under Section 498A and 307 of the IPC, which later, on

intimation of death was altered to Section 302 of the IPC. PW8

does not affirm the signature of the Head Constable in his

Page 9 of 11

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

deposition nor was he confronted with the statement recorded,

as the one he received, leading to the registration of the FIR.

11. The FIR produced at Annexure P3 though indicates the

name of the deceased as the complainant does not enclose the

first information statement. We have to immediately notice that

evidence of PW8 was that at 1.00 am on 08.05.2013, he received

a statement recorded by LW16, (the Head Constable) which

date and time is recorded in the FIR. The dying declaration

recorded by the Head Constable is produced as Annexure P1.

It speaks of having been recorded at 2.30 am on 07.05.2013. The

learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the time

recorded is a mistake and it is 8.30 am. The recording of the

declaration went up to 9.15 am; quite possible since the

deceased had 96% burns. However, the issue as to why the

dying declaration recorded at 9.15 am on 07.05.2013 was

registered as an FIR at 1.00 am on 08.05.2013, more than 15

hours later, is very crucial.

12. Yet again, a dying declaration is said to have been

recorded as Annexure P2 by the Executive Magistrate wherein

the Doctor also certified that the patient was conscious and fit to

give a statement. The Doctor who attended to the victim

Page 10 of 11

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

testified as PW7 and spoke of injuries sustained by the victim to

be between 95% to 100%. Here we have to immediately

observe that the Surgeon who conducted post-mortem, spoke

of a credible statement possible only if the burns are between

80-90%. We cannot also ignore the fact that the Executive

Magistrate notices the time at which the dying declaration was

recorded as 8.55 am, at which time the Head Constable is said

to have been recording the dying declaration.

13. We notice the reasons stated as a motive for the accused,

differs in both the dying declarations, which we need not dwell

upon, since even otherwise the dying declarations are

suspicious. As we already noticed the motive of constant

quarrels between the couple has not been established. The

dying declarations speak of death, both on different issues, but

they have already been found to be not credible. The homicidal

death has also not been established equivocally, and doubt

lingers as to whether it was a suicide; which was also the version

of the relatives of the deceased themselves. Insofar as no

explanation having been offered by the accused, we find no

such circumstance arising since the relatives of the witnesses’

Page 11 of 11

Criminal Appeal No.4849 of 2025

spoke of the accused being present and having attempted to

douse the fire.

14. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the conviction as

entered into by the Trial Court and the High Court. There is no

single circumstance proved by the prosecution in trial and the

doubt regarding the death having been caused by suicide

bring us to disbelieve the prosecution version, as a reasonable

doubt lingers in our minds. The prosecution failed to prove a

single circumstance and the accused hence stands acquitted. If

not already released on bail, the accused shall be set free if he

is not needed in any other case and if already released, his bail

bonds shall stand cancelled.

15. The appeal stands disposed of.

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

.......…….……………………. J.

(J. B. PARDIWALA)

....……….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 11, 2026.