Telangana High Court
Kadugudu Jayawanth , Raju, Medchal Dt vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp on 16 April, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.757 OF 2017
DATE: 16-04-2026
Between:
Kadugudu jayawanth @ Raju @ Jayappa .. Appellant - Accused
Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyd. .. Respondent - Complainant
This Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Mr. M. Phanindra Bhargav, learned counsel for appellant
– accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
28.04.2016 in S.C. No.760 of 2013 passed by learned Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the
appellant – accused for the offence under Section – 302 of IPC and
accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay
2
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
fine of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year.
4. The case of the prosecution is as under:
i) The appellant – accused – Kandugudu Jayavanth @ Raju @
Jayappa hails from Kanapur Village, Aurad Mandal, Bidar District of
Karnataka State. His marriage was performed with one Kodar Sunitha
of Vadagam Village of Karnataka State about 10 years back. They
have two (02) children. Since his earnings at native place was
insufficient, he migrated to Hyderabad and working as Hamali in
Kothapet Fruit Market by leaving his wife and two children at his
native place.
ii) While working as labourer in Fruit Market, Kothapet, he
came into contact with one Muthyala Laxmi (LW.5) about six (06)
years ago who is having two children and she is a widow. Therefore,
he started extra marital relation with LW.5.
iii) Again about six (06) months prior to the incident, the
accused again came into contact with Manne Andalu (deceased
herein) at Fruit Market, Kothapet and started leading extra marital life
3
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017with the deceased also by taking a room on rent adjacent to the room
of LW.5 and kept her in that room and was living with her.
iv) Having come to know about illegal intimacy of the accused
with deceased, LW.5 started quarrelling with both of them.
Thereafter, on coming to know about illegal intimacy of deceased
with accused, PW.4, the husband of the deceased – Manne Anjaneyulu
also deserted his wife (deceased) and was staying at his native village
– Gungal, with their two children.
v) Both LW.5 and the deceased were quarrelling more often.
The accused shifted his residence from Bandlaguda to H.No.11-21-
1069, Phase-I, NTR Nagar, L.B. Nagar about one week prior to the
incident and was staying with the deceased.
vi) The accused used to beat the deceased regularly in drunken
state and was abusing her in most filthy language, for which the
deceased having disgusted with the attitude of the accused told him
that she would go to her husband if he beats her and abuses her
regularly. On that, the accused decided to do away the deceased and
get rid of her forever.
4
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
vii) Accordingly, on 13.01.2013 at about 16:30 hours, the
accused came to his house at NTR Nagar from his labour work and
abused the deceased as usual and quarreled with her, for which she
told him that she would join her husband if he behaves like that.
Upon which, the accused got enraged and decided to kill her.
Therefore, with an intention to kill her, he poured kerosene on her and
set her ablaze with a burning match stick, due to which, she received
severe burn injuries, flames raised, she tried to come out of the house
by raising hue and cries and tried to catch hold the accused, then the
accused pushed her inside. During the scuffle, the accused also
sustained burnt injuries on his tips of his fingers of right hand, right
hand forearm, a burnt injury on left thumb edge and burnt injury on
right knee and fled away from there.
viii) On hearing her hues and cries, neighbours, PWs.1 & 2 and
LW.3 gathered there and shifted the deceased to Osmania General
Hospital, Hyderabad in 108 Ambulance and got her admitted in ABC
Ward on 13.01.2013 at 19:25 hours vide MLC No.282 and IP No.1487
for treatment where she succumbed to injuries on 15.01.2013 at 19:30
hours. Thus, the accused committed the aforesaid offence.
5
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
5. On receipt of information from Osmania General Hospital,
Hyderabad on 13.01.2013 at 20:30 hours and on recording the
statement of deceased by PW.14 – Sub Inspector of Police, L.B. Nagar
Police Station, PW.14 registered a case in Crime No.56 of 2013 under
Section – 307of IPC took up the investigation.
6. During the course of investigation, he examined the
witnesses and recorded their statements. He also secured presence of
panchas (PW.6 & LW.12) and drew the scene of offence. He also
took steps for recording the dying declaration of the deceased and got
recorded the same through PW.12 – Magistrate.
7. While the investigation was in progress, the deceased was
succumbed to injuries on 15.01.2013 at 19:30 hours. Then, LW.13 –
Inspector of Police, altered the section from 307 of IPC to 302 of IPC
and proceeded with further investigation. He also secured panchas
(PWs.7 and 8) for inquest and got conducted autopsy over the dead
body of the deceased through PW.11. Pursuant to the confessional
statement made by the accused in the presence of PW.9 and LW.10,
he recovered and seized MOs.1 to 3. On completion of investigation,
he filed a charge sheet against the appellant herein. The same was
6
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
committed to the Sessions Court which has taken on file as S.C.
No.760 of 2013 and thereafter made over to the trial Court.
8. The trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section –
302 of IPC against the accused and then proceeded with trial.
9. During trial, PWs.1 to 14 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17
were marked and MOs.1 to 3 were exhibited. Neither oral evidence
nor documentary evidence was let in by the accused.
10. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution,
the accused was examined under Section – 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter,
upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against
the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and accordingly imposed
sentences of imprisonment in the manner stated above. Challenging
the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the appellant
preferred the present appeal:
11. Learned counsel for the appellant – accused contended as
follows:
i. There is no direct evidence and the entire case rests on
circumstantial evidence.
7
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017ii. PW.1 was not the proper person to identify the accused during
the course of trial and she is not an eye-witness to the
occurrence.
iii. No report was lodged by PW4, husband of the deceased, with
regard to missing of her wife.
iv. PWs.8 and 9 did not support the case of prosecution.
v. In the dying declaration, the deceased did not refer to the name
of the accused and she referred to the name of one Mr. Raju,
who is not the accused. Therefore, no motive can be attributed
to the accused basing on the said dying declaration.
vi. There is no evidence to show that the accused was working at
Fruit Market, Kothapet.
vii. The Investigating Officer did not collect finger prints on
kerosene tin and also the kerosene in the said tin separately.
viii. Without considering the said aspects, learned trial Court
convicted for the aforesaid offence and imposed life
imprisonment.
With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to set aside
the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
8
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
would submit as under:
i. There is evidence through PW.1 for identification of accused.
ii. The dying declaration made by the deceased proves the case of
the prosecution. The contradictions and inconsistencies, if any,
in the said dying declaration are minor in nature and the same
would not tilt the case of prosecution.
iii. Though there is no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence
forms a complete chain to convict the appellant.
iv. There was motive on the part of the appellant and the same was
proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
v. Having considered all the aforesaid aspects only, the trial Court
convicted the appellant and, therefore, there is no error in it.
With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
sought to dismiss the appeal.
13. In view above rival submissions, the point that falls for
consideration by this Court is:
Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment
recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section –
9
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017302 of IPC against the appellant herein – accused are
sustainable, both on facts and in law?
14. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions and perusal of
record, the prosecution alleges that this case concerns a homicidal act
arising out of a strained illicit relationship. The accused and the
deceased woman, who was already married and had two children,
were living together after leaving her husband. Their relationship was
abusive, particularly when the accused was intoxicated and he used to
assault her frequently. When the deceased expressed her intention to
return to her husband, the accused became enraged and formed an
intention to kill her.
15. Section 302 of IPC embodies the punishment for murder.
Its essence lies in penalizing acts where a person intentionally causes
the death of another, or commits an act with the knowledge that it is
so imminently dangerous that it will likely result in death. The
provision reflects the gravity with which the law treats the unlawful
taking of life. It authorizes the imposition of the most severe
punishments, like death penalty or imprisonment for life, depending
on the circumstances of the case. The focus under this section is not
merely on the act of causing death, but on the presence of intention or
10
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
knowledge that elevates the act to commit murder, thereby justifying
stringent punishment.
16. Now, coming to the case on hand, PW.1 is the owner of the
deceased house and an eye-witness. According to her, she resides at
Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. They are three sisters. Their
father had two houses at NTR Nagar, L.B.Nagar and out of which one
house had given to one of her sisters. House No.11-21-1069 consists
of nine rooms out of which, three rooms fell to her share. She used to
give those rooms on rent. About 6th or 7th January, 2013, the accused
along with his wife (deceased) came and took one room on monthly
rent of Rs.1,000/-. She identified the accused while giving evidence
in the Court.
i) PW.1 further deposed that in connection with Sankranthi
festival, she came to her parent’s house along with her children. Her
sister, Sailaja also came. On 13.01.2013 during after-noon hours,
when they were making preparations for eatables on the eve of
Festival, at about 4.30 P.M., she heard hue and cries and two persons
also came to them and informed that there was quarrel going on in the
room of the accused. Immediately, she rushed to the room and her
11
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
sister followed her. She noticed the deceased was in flames in the
room and the accused on seeing them ran away from the spot. They
put off the flames by covering with bed sheet. When she enquired the
deceased, she disclosed that the accused quarreled with her for the last
two days and then she expressed her willingness to go to her husband,
the accused sprinkled kerosene upon her and set fire. Some persons
gathered there and informed 108 Ambulance and the injured deceased
was shifted to Hospital. Later, she came to know that the deceased
died while undergoing treatment in Osmania General Hospital,
Hyderabad. The police examined her and recorded her statement.
ii) During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that at the time of
incident, all the three rooms were occupied by the tenants. She does
not say the names of the tenants at that time as subsequently new
tenants came. Her mother let out the premises to the accused and
informed her and they visited the premises and saw them. When she
visited the house of her parents on the eve of festival, her mother
informed her that the deceased and the accused joined in one room.
iii) PW.1 further admitted that at the time of her witnessing the
deceased, she noticed flames from bottom to top and she could not
12
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
clearly notice the flames as it was partly dark. She noticed a blanket
by the side of the deceased and then she spread over the same upon
the deceased. At the time of incident, the lights were not on as it was
4.30 P.M. She admits that she does not know any other particulars of
the accused, except one Raju joined as tenant.
17. PW.2, neighbour of the deceased and eye-witness, deposed
that on the date of incident, when he came to the house and during
evening hours a group of public gathered in a house situated four
houses away from his house. He also went to the house of deceased
and found a lady with burn injuries and laid on the ground. Then the
police came there. Ambulance also came there and the injured was
shifted on Ambulance for treatment. He found smell of kerosene at the
scene of offence. He does not know who sprinkled the kerosene and
how set fire. The police examined him and recorded his statement.
i) During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that when the
injured was in flames, the daughters of the house owner came there.
He stated before the Police that on enquiry he came to know that one
Raju and the injured were husband and wife lived together and came
about 4 days back on rent and quarrelling each other frequently and on
13
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
13.01.2013 at 4.30 P.m., Raju quarreled with the injured and poured
kerosene on her and set her ablaze and fled away, as such, the injured
raised hue and cry and the neighbours gathered there, put off flames,
called 108 Ambulance and shifted her to the Hospital.
18. PW.3, photographer, deposed with regard to taking
photographs of injured at the scene of offence. He also noticed an
empty kerosene tin, matchbox and partly burnt saree piece. Ex.P1 is a
bunch of five photographs among six. Ex.P2 is the C.D. Police
examined him and recorded his statement.
19. PW.4 is the husband of the deceased. He deposed that the
deceased is his wife. She is no more and died due to burn injuries.
About 4 or 5 years prior to the death of deceased, he married her.
They used to live together for some time at his native village. They
were blessed with one son and one daughter. Later, they shifted to
Bandlaguda huts. They went for coolie work for 2 or 3 months and his
wife used to work in nearby houses. He used to come to Uppal for
work there and go back to Bandlaguda. He went to his village along
with his children and his wife stayed in the hut at Bandlaguda. He
wanted to return on the same day night, he came back on the next day
14
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
morning and found his wife missing. He searched for his wife for 5
months and saw his wife in Osmania General Hospital while she was
undergoing treatment with burn injuries. He was told by his wife that
she went along with Raju, stayed with him and when she wanted to
come back, the said Raju set her fire by pouring kerosene. His wife
died while undergoing treatment. After four days of the death of his
wife, he came to know about Raju. While undergoing treatment his
wife showed the photograph of the Raju. Later he saw Raju in the
police station.
i) During cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that he did not
lodge any report when his wife missed from his house at Bandlaguda.
The Police, L.B. Nagar informed him about admission of his wife in
the Hospital.
20. PW.5 is the mother of the deceased and she is a
circumstantial witness. She deposed that the deceased is her daughter.
PW.4 is her son-in-law. She got two sons and three daughters. The
deceased is her 4th issue. The marriage of the deceased with PW.4
was performed about 10 to 15 years back from the date of her
evidence. Her daughter and PW.4 migrated to city about 6 months
15
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
prior to the death of deceased. The deceased used to attend labour
work at NTR Nagar, where she had contacts with one person Raju.
During the Sankranthi festival, PW.4 went his native place along with
his children and the deceased stayed back to collect labour charges
and go to her husband. Her daughter did not visit her in-law’s house.
After the deceased admitted in Osmania General Hospital for
treatment of burns, PW.4 informed him over phone. Immediately she
went there and saw her daughter with burn injuries. When she
quested her daughter how injuries caused and she stated that one Raju
had acquaintance with her while working together, she quarreled with
him and he did not allow her to go to her native village. He poured
kerosene and set her fire and she was brought to the hospital. The
police examined her and recorded her statement. The accused is
responsible for causing burn injuries over her daughter.
i) During cross-examination, she admitted that her son-in-law
used to stay in the house and her daughter used to go to earn money
before death. Her daughter told her that Raju was responsible for the
injuries found upon her body. Her daughter and son-in-law lived
together after the marriage and after their migration to City, the said
16
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
Raju had acquaintance with her daughter and present at the time of
death of her husband.
21. PW.6, panch witness for the scene of offence and seizure
material, deposed that on the instructions of the police, she and LW.12
acted as mediators. The police inspected the scene of offence in their
presence where they found marks of flames in the room. They also
noticed burnt saree pieces, kerosene plastic tin and match box, and the
police seized the same as in MOs.1 to 3. The police also drew the
panchanama and rough sketch which are Exs.P3 and P4. During
cross-examination, she admitted that the police shown her MOs.1 to 3
before seizing and later they took away.
22. PW.7 is the panch witness for the inquest panchanama.
She did not support the case of prosecution and, therefore, she was
declared hostile by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and cross-
examined her. During cross-examination, she admitted that after
coming to know about the death of deceased, she visited the Osmania
General Hospital Mortuary and saw the dead body of the deceased.
The deceased died due to burn injuries from head to toes. She came
to know through the persons present there that the deceased received
17
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
injuries in the hands of one Raju while she was residing with him and
the Raju poured kerosene on her and set fire.
i) During cross-examination by learned counsel for the
accused, she admitted that she noticed the burnt cloths over the body
of the deceased at the time of her visit to the hospital.
23. PW.8 is another panch witness for the inquest
panchanama. Since PW.7 was turned hostile, the prosecution
examined another panch. Even this witness (PW.8) also did not
support of prosecution case and, therefore, he was also declared
hostile and cross-examined him by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
24. PW.9 is also a panch witness for confessional statement of
accused. He deposed that he is a resident of NTR Nagar, L.B. Nagar.
He used to go to L.B. Nagar police station with regard to some work
of their locality. In that connection the police obtained his signatures
on some written papers informing that they have apprehended a
person who is involved in a murder case committed in their locality
and that recorded the confession of that person. Hence, he put his
signatures on the papers. The signatures shown to him on the
18
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
confession panchanama are Exs.P9 and P10. At this stage, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor declared him hostile and cross-examined
him. During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from this
witness. However, the defence counsel reported no cross-examination.
25. PW.10 is another panch witness for confessional statement.
He also deposed on the lines deposed by PW.9. However, he
identified his signatures as in Exs.P11 and P12. Since this witness
also did not support the case of prosecution, he was declared hostile
and cross-examined him by learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor.
Even in the cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from him.
26. PW.11 is the Assistant Professor. He conducted autopsy
over the dead body of the deceased, wherein he found ante mortem
Derma Epidermal, mixed burns present on the face, neck, both upper
limbs, front of chest, front of left thigh and front of right thigh. The
burns are blackish red in colour. According to him, the deceased died
on 15.01.2013 at 7.30 P.M. in Osmania General Hospital while
undergoing treatment. The cause of death was due to burns. The
percentage of burns is 50% approximately. Ex.P13 is the post-mortem
examination report. During cross-examination, he admitted that he
19
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
has not mentioned the percentage of burns. The burns of the deceased
were second degree of burns.
27. PW.12 is the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,
Hyderabad. He deposed with regard to recording of dying declaration
of the deceased. According to him, he identified the patient through
concerned police constable of L.B. Nagar Police Station and after
sending all of them out from the view of the patient, he proceeded to
record her statement. Initially, he put simple questions to know the
mental condition of the injured. After giving answers, he was satisfied
with regard to the fit condition of the patient and accordingly he
obtained endorsement of Duty Doctor at the end of the preliminary
questions put and recorded by him. Then he asked about the reason
for receiving the burn injuries. The patient Andalu stated before him
that one Raju burnt her while she was going to her husband. She
stated that the said Raju is the native of Beedhar and working in Fruit
Market, Kothapet and he poured kerosene up on her and lit fire. She
also stated that she wants to visit her husband and then she intended to
join her husband and then the said Raju burnt her while she was
intended to go to her husband. She stated that the said Raju burnt her
in a house nearby NTR Fruit Market. Later he read over the contents
20
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
to the patient and obtained her thumb mark on the declaration. He
also obtained the LTI of the patient accordingly. The doctor present
along with him, mentioned at the end of the statement that the patient
was conscious and fit state of mind during the course of recording
dying declaration. Accordingly, he completed the dying declaration at
9.30 P.M. of 13.01.2013 at Osmania Hospital. Ex.P14 is the dying
declaration recorded by him.
i) During cross-examination, he admitted that he has not
mentioned the name of Station House Officer, who gave requisition
for recording dying declaration. The age of the deceased is not stated
by the victim. The declaration stated the name of the culprit as Raju
and no descriptive particulars of age. The declarant gave answers to
his questions.
28. PW.14 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, L.B. Nagar, deposed
with regard to receipt of information from Osmania General Hospital
outpatient with regard to admission of Andalu (deceased) in burns
ward. He visited the Hospital, identified the patient and recorded her
statement. He read over the contents of the statement to victim and
then he took her right thumb impression as she sustained with burn
injuries over her body including her hands and she could not put
21
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
signature. Basing on the same, he registered a case in Crime No.56 of
2013 and issued Ex.P16 FIR. Ex.P17 is the printed FIR sent to the
Committal Court. He also took steps for recording the dying
declaration of deceased by the Magistrate. He also visited the scene
of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and rough
sketch in the presence of PW.6 and LW.12. He seized MOs.1 to 3.
On 15.01.2013 at about 7.30 P.M., he received information from
Osmania General Hospital about the death of the deceased while
undergoing treatment. Basing on the said information, he handed over
the CD file to PW.13.
29. PW.13 is the Inspector of Police, L.B. Nagar, deposed that
he took up investigation from PW.14. On receipt of information
about death of deceased, he altered section to 302 of IPC. He took
steps for conducting inquest panchanama over the dead body of the
deceased in the presence of PWs.7 and 8. He also took steps for
conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter,
the accused confessed the commission of offence in the presence of
PWs.9 and 10 as in Ex.P15. Thereafter, he arrested the accused. After
completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet.
22
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
30. In view of the aforesaid testimonies of prosecution
witnesses and re-appraisal of the same, it is clear that the evidence of
PW.1 – the house owner is quite significant though she is not an
eyewitness to the actual act of pouring kerosene and setting the
deceased on fire. Her testimony falls within the category of a natural
and independent witness. She had no apparent motive to falsely
implicate the accused and her presence at the scene is fully explained
as she responded immediately upon hearing the cries. Therefore, high
credibility can be attached to such witness because her conduct is
spontaneous and consistent with normal human behaviour. Though
she did not see the act of burning, her evidence is crucial in
establishing the circumstantial chain. She reached the spot
immediately, found the deceased in flames, attempted to save her and
importantly observed the accused fleeing from the scene. The act of
fleeing is a relevant conduct under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as it
indicates a guilty mind and can be taken as an incriminating
circumstance when considered along with other evidence.
31. The evidentiary value of PW.2 is also important, though
similar to PW.1 he is not a direct witness to the actual act of setting
23
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
the deceased on fire. PW.2 can be treated as a natural witness whose
presence at the scene is explained by his immediate response to the
cries of the victim. His testimony that he saw the deceased in flames
soon after the incident helps in establishing the time and place of
occurrence, thereby supporting the prosecution case that the incident
happened in the manner alleged. His admission in cross-examination
that PW.1 was also present strengthens the credibility of both
witnesses, as it shows consistency and mutual corroboration between
independent witnesses. Thus, the evidence of PW.2 corroborates the
evidence of PW.1.
32. The evidence of PW.3, the photographer, also corroborates
the prosecution case with regard to finding empty kerosene tin, match
box and partly burnt saree piece etc., at the scene of offence and
thereby strongly supports the prosecution version that the deceased
was set on fire using kerosene. Therefore, his evidence is also
relevant in the case on hand as it corroborates other oral testimonies,
particularly the dying declaration and the statements of PW.1 and
PW.2 regarding the burning incident. In essence, PW.3’s testimony
does not directly prove who committed the offence, but it plays a
crucial role in corroborating the manner of occurrence, strengthening
24
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
the prosecution case by providing reliable, visual, and physical
support to the chain of circumstances.
33. Coming to the evidence of PW.4, who is husband of the
deceased, the same also corroborates the evidence of PWs.1 and 2
with regard to the deceased died due to the injuries. Nothing useful
was elicited during cross-examination of PW.4. However, it was
elicited that no report was given by him with regard to missing of his
wife/deceased. The mere fact that PW.4 did not lodge a police report
about his wife missing is not fatal to the prosecution case. Such an
omission by itself does not discredit the overall evidence, especially
when there is other material on record explaining the circumstances of
missing, the incident and the cause of death of the deceased. It may at
best be a lapse, but it does not undermine the core prosecution case if
the remaining evidence is otherwise reliable and consistent.
34. The evidence of PW.5, the mother of the deceased, testified
that upon receiving a phone call from her son-in-law (PW.4), she
immediately went to the hospital where her daughter had been
admitted with burn injuries. On reaching the hospital and making
enquiries, she spoke directly with her daughter, who clearly stated that
25
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
the accused had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. This
statement made by the deceased while she was undergoing treatment
assumes significance as it directly implicates the accused in the
commission of the offence. PW.5 further deposed that there had been
prior quarrels and disputes between the deceased and the accused,
thereby indicating the existence of a strained relationship and a
possible motive for the incident. Her testimony not only speaks to the
immediate cause of the burn injuries as narrated by the victim herself,
but also provides background circumstances that support the
prosecution case. On the basis of what her daughter conveyed to her
and the surrounding circumstances, the mother categorically asserted
that the accused was responsible for causing the burn injuries which
ultimately led to her daughter’s death.
35. Perusal of the evidence of PW.6 would reveal that the
police conducted a scene of offence inspection in their presence,
thereby lending authenticity and transparency to the investigative
process. During such inspection, they observed clear signs indicative
of a fire incident, including visible flame or burn marks within the
room, which suggested that the occurrence had taken place at that
very location. She further stated that certain material objects
26
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
connected with the incident were found at the scene, namely burnt
pieces of a saree, a plastic tin containing kerosene and a match box.
These items are significant as they corroborate the prosecution case
regarding the manner in which the offence was committed. The
police, in the presence of the panch witnesses, seized these articles by
following due procedure. Further, the police prepared a panchanama
documenting the condition of the scene, the observations made and
the articles seized. A rough sketch of the scene of offence was also
drawn to depict the layout and relevant features of the place. Thus, the
panch witness confirmed that all these procedures were carried out in
their presence, thereby supporting the credibility of the investigation
and the recovery of material objects.
36. PW.7 and 8 are the panch witnesses relating to the inquest
were declared hostile by the prosecution as they did not fully support
the case in their chief examination. Consequently, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor cross-examined them to elicit the truth.
During such cross-examination, PW.7 admitted certain material
aspects. She admitted that upon learning about the death of the
deceased, she went to the hospital mortuary and saw the dead body.
She observed that the deceased had sustained extensive burn injuries
27
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
covering the entire body from head to toe, thereby confirming the
severity and nature of the injuries. Although, she did not directly
support the prosecution version in full, she further admitted that she
came to know from persons present at the mortuary that the deceased
had suffered those injuries while she was staying with the accused,
and that the accused had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.
While this part of her testimony is in the nature of hearsay, her
admissions regarding visiting the mortuary and noticing the extensive
burn injuries lend some corroboration to the medical and other
evidence on record. Her being declared hostile does not render her
entire testimony unreliable; rather the portions that support the
prosecution case and are otherwise credible can still be taken into
consideration.
37. In contrast, PW.8 did not support the prosecution case at
all. Even during cross-examination by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, he did not support the case of prosecution. Thus, while
the evidence of PW.7 can still be relied upon to the extent it supports
the prosecution during cross-examination; the evidence of PW.8 does
not advance the prosecution case in any manner. Nonetheless, as
inquest panchanama is only a procedural aspect and not substantive
28
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
evidence, the failure or non-support of one or more panch witnesses is
not by itself fatal, if the prosecution is otherwise able to establish its
case through reliable and cogent evidence on record.
38. Perusal of evidence of PWs.9 and 10 would reveal that
when shown the confessional panchanama, they identified their
signatures appearing thereon as marked as Exs.P9 to 12 respectively.
However, they did not speak about the contents of the confession, nor
did they affirm that the accused voluntarily made any statement in
their presence. Their evidence suggests that they signed the
documents at the instance of the police, without having personal
knowledge of the actual recording of any confession. In view of their
failure to support the prosecution version regarding the manner and
voluntariness of the alleged confession, they were declared hostile by
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and were cross-examined.
However, even during such cross-examination, no material was
elicited to substantiate the prosecution case or to establish that the
confession was made in their presence in accordance with law. Thus,
the evidence of PWs.9 and 10 does not advance the prosecution case
insofar as the proof of the confessional statement is concerned, except
29
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
to the limited extent of identifying their signatures on the document.
In the absence of supporting evidence from PWs.9 and 10, the panch
witnesses to the alleged confessional statement, is not by itself fatal to
the prosecution case.
39. It is a settled principle of law that a confession made to the
police is not substantive evidence, except to the limited extent
permissible under law and its evidentiary value is already weak unless
properly proved in accordance with legal requirements. Therefore,
notwithstanding the fact that both the panch witnesses to the
confessional statement turned hostile, the prosecution case does not
fail. The remaining evidence on record is sufficient to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
40. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, there is also medical
evidence. According to the testimony of PW.11, the deceased
sustained ante-mortem derma-epidermal mixed burns affecting
multiple parts of the body, including the face, neck, both upper limbs,
front of the chest, and front of both thighs. The burns were described
as blackish-red in colour, indicating that they occurred while the
deceased was alive. The doctor further stated that the burns were
30
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
second-degree burns and in his assessment, covered approximately
50% of the body, although he admitted during cross-examination that
the exact percentage was not recorded in the post-mortem report
(Ex.P13). Importantly, he confirmed that the deceased died on
15.01.2013 at 7:30 P.M. in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad,
while undergoing treatment, and that the cause of death was due to
burn injuries. Thus, overall, the medical evidence not only confirms
the cause of death as burn injuries, but also supports the prosecution
case that the injuries were deliberate and sufficient to result in death.
This makes it a key pillar in proving the guilt of the accused.
41. Now, coming to the evidence of PW.14 and PW.13, Sub-
Inspector and the Inspector of Police, whose evidence demonstrates
that the investigation was conducted in accordance with the procedure
laid down under law. Upon receiving information from the hospital
regarding the admission of the deceased with severe burn injuries,
PW.14 promptly visited the hospital, recorded the statement of the
deceased and registered the FIR. Recognizing the gravity of the
situation, he requisitioned the Magistrate to record the dying
declaration, which was carried out in accordance with legal
requirements, ensuring that the deceased was conscious, mentally fit,
31
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
and her statement was voluntary. Following this, the PW.14 visited
the scene of the offence, in the presence of panch witnesses, he
observed signs of fire and seized material objects, including a
kerosene tin, burnt saree pieces and a matchbox and the same were
recovered and seized. After the death of the deceased, the Sub-
Inspector handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police
(PW.13), who altered the Section of law to reflect the commission of
murder, conducted the inquest in the presence of the doctor and panch
witnesses and later recorded the alleged confessional statement of the
accused. The accused was subsequently arrested and upon completion
of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid. Thus, the testimony of
both Officers establishes the completeness and credibility of the
investigation, showing that all crucial steps from registration,
recording the dying declaration and seizure of evidence to the inquest
and arrest were properly followed. Even though the panch witnesses
for the confessional statements did not support the prosecution, the
investigation ensured that other independent and corroborative
evidence was collected and preserved providing a strong foundation
for proving the guilt of the accused.
32
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
42. The evidence of PW.12, the Magistrate, relates to recording
of the dying declaration of the deceased, which is a crucial piece of
evidence in this case. According to his testimony, he first identified
the patient through the police constable and ensured that all other
persons were kept out of her view to maintain the voluntariness and
confidentiality of her statement. He then asked preliminary questions
to assess the mental and physical condition of the deceased. After
being satisfied that she was conscious and mentally fit, he obtained
the endorsement of the duty doctor as required before proceeding to
record the dying declaration.
43. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant –
accused that in the dying declaration, the deceased uttered the name of
the person who poured kerosene upon her as “RAJU”, whereas the
name of the appellant – accused is Kandugudu Jayawanth and that the
said “RAJU” is not as that of the appellant – accused. Perusal of
Ex.P14 – dying declaration would reveal that the deceased stated that
one “RAJU” had burnt her with kerosene while she was intending to
go to her husband. She described “Raju” and he hails from Bidar
working in the Fruit Market and identified the location of the incident
33
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
as a house nearby the Fruit Market. She stated that “Raju” poured
kerosene on her and set her on fire. The Magistrate read the
declaration back to the deceased. He also confirmed that the doctor
present during the recording verified that the patient was in a fit state
of mind and capable of making a conscious statement. During cross-
examination, the Magistrate admitted minor formal omissions, such as
not mentioning the name of the Station House Officer who
requisitioned the recording, the age of the deceased or descriptive
particulars of the accused. Importantly, the deceased only referred to
the accused as “Raju”, whereas his full name is “Kandugudu
Jayawanth. He is also called with two more names as “Raju” and
“Jayappa”. The defense has tried to exploit this minor discrepancy
contending that “Raju” may not be the accused, suggesting a possible
misidentification. However, this argument is weak for several
reasons, such as, all other prosecution witnesses, including the
husband, mother of the deceased and other witnesses referred to the
accused as “Raju.” This consistency shows that “Raju” as mentioned
in the dying declaration clearly refers to the accused; the deceased
described specific facts about the accused, including his native place
(Bidar) and place of work (Fruit Market), which match the accused
34
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
profile; the Magistrate confirmed that the deceased was conscious,
mentally fit, and aware of the act when making the declaration.
44. As per law, a dying declaration is considered highly
reliable and requires no corroboration, though corroboration
strengthens the case. It is well-settled in criminal jurisprudence that
dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence and can form the
basis for conviction. Its credibility depends on the state of mind,
voluntariness and consistency with other evidence, all of which are
satisfied in this case. Thus, the dying declaration directly implicates
the accused as the person who caused the fatal burns. The minor
discrepancies pointed out by the defence are formal in nature and
cannot undermine the substance of the declaration.
45. In Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur,
Andhra Pradesh1, the Apex Court also considered the evidentiary
value of the dying declaration. Paragraph Nos.22 to 26 of the said
judgment are relevant and the same are extracted as under:
“22. It is equally well settled and needs no
restatement at our hands that dying declaration can
form the sole basis for conviction. But at the same1
. (2007) 15 SCC 465
35
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017time due care and caution must be exercised in
considering weight to be given to dying
declaration inasmuch as there could be any number
of circumstances which may affect the truth. This
Court in more than one decision has cautioned that
the courts have always to be on guard to see that
the dying declaration was not the result of either
tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination.
It is the duty of the courts to find that the deceased
was in a fit state of mind to make the dying
declaration. In order to satisfy itself that the
deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the
dying declaration, the courts have to look for the
medical opinion.
23. It is not difficult to appreciate why dying
declarations are admitted in evidence at a trial for
murder, as a striking exception to the general rule
against hearsay. For example, any sanction of the
oath in the case of a living witness is thought to be
balanced at least by the final conscience of the
dying man. Nobody, it has been said, would wish
to die with a lie on his lips. A dying declaration
has got sanctity and a person giving the dying
declaration will be the last to give untruth as he
stands before his creator.
24. There is a legal maxim “nemo moriturus
praesumitur mentire” meaning, that a man will not
meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth. Woodroffe
36
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017and Amir Ali, in their Treatise on Evidence
Act state:
“when a man is dying, the grave position in which
he is placed is held by law to be a sufficient ground for
his veracity and therefore the tests of oath and cross-
examination are dispensed with”.
25. The court has to consider each case in the
circumstances of the case. What value should be
given to a dying declaration is left to court, which
on assessment of the circumstances and the
evidence and materials on record, will come to a
conclusion about the truth or otherwise of the
version, be it written, oral, verbal or by sign or by
gestures.
26. It is also a settled principle of law that dying
declaration is a substantive evidence and an order
of conviction can be safely recorded on the basis
of dying declaration provided the court is fully
satisfied that the dying declaration made by the
deceased was voluntary and reliable and the author
recorded the dying declaration as stated by the
deceased. This Court laid down the principle that
for relying upon the dying declaration the court
must be conscious that the dying declaration was
voluntary and further it was recorded correctly
and above all the maker was in a fit condition–
mentally and physically–to make such statement.”
37
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
46. In Paniben v. State of Gujarat2, the Apex Court while
holding that a dying declaration is entitled to great weight however
cautioned to note that the accused has no power to cross-examination.
Paragraph No.18 of the said judgment is relevant and the same is
extracted as under:
“18. … Such a power is essential for eliciting the
truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the
reason the court also insists that the dying
declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire
full confidence of the court in its correctness. The
court has to be on guard that the statement of the
deceased was not as a result of either tutoring,
prompting or a product of imagination. The court
must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a
fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to
observe and identify the assailants. Once the court
is satisfied that the declaration was true and
voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction
without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid
down as an absolute rule of law that the dying
declaration cannot form the sole basis of
conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule
requiring corroboration is merely a rule of
prudence. This Court has laid down in several2
. (1992) 2 SCC 474
38
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017judgments the principles governing dying
declaration, which could be summed up as under:
(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that
dying declaration cannot be acted upon without
corroboration. (Munnu Raja v. State of M.P. [(1976) 3
SCC 104 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 376 : (1976) 2 SCR 764] )
(ii) If the court is satisfied that the dying
declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction
on it, without corroboration. (State of U.P. v. Ram
Sagar Yadav [(1985) 1 SCC 552 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 127
: AIR 1985 SC 416]; Ramawati Devi v. State of
Bihar [(1983) 1 SCC 211 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 169 : AIR
1983 SC 164] .)
(iii) This Court has to scrutinise the dying
declaration carefully and must ensure that the
declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or
imagination. The deceased had opportunity to observe
and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make
the declaration. (K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public
Prosecutor [(1976) 3 SCC 618 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 473 :
AIR 1976 SC 1994] .)
(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should
not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
(Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 264 :
1974 SCC (Cri) 426] )
(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could
never make any dying declaration the evidence with
regard to it is to be rejected. (Kake Singh v. State of
M.P. [1981 Supp SCC 25 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 645 : AIR
1982 SC 1021] )
39
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from
infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (Ram
Manorath v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 654 : 1981
SCC (Cri) 581] )
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not
contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be
rejected. (State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti
Laxmipati Naidu [1980 Supp SCC 455 : 1981 SCC
(Cri) 364 : AIR 1981 SC 617] .)
(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief
statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the
shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth.
(Surajdeo Ojha v. State of Bihar [1980 Supp SCC 769
: 1979 SCC (Cri) 519 : AIR 1979 SC 1505] .)
(ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether
deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the
dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But
where the eyewitness has said that the deceased was in
a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration,
the medical opinion cannot prevail. (Nanhau
Ram v. State of M.P. [1988 Supp SCC 152 : 1988 SCC
(Cri) 342 : AIR 1988 SC 912] )
(x) Where the prosecution version differs from the
version as given in the dying declaration, the said
declaration cannot be acted upon. (State of
U.P. v. Madan Mohan [(1989) 3 SCC 390 : 1989 SCC
(Cri) 585 : AIR 1989 SC 1519].)”
47. In Nallapati Sivaiah1, the Apex Court placing reliance on
the principle laid down by its Constitution Bench in Laxman v. State
40
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
of Maharashtra 3 in paragraph No.52 held that the dying declaration
must inspire confidence so as to make it safe to act upon. Whether it is
safe to act upon a dying declaration depends upon not only the
testimony of the person recording the dying declaration–be it even a
Magistrate but also all the material available on record and the
circumstances including the medical evidence. The evidence and the
material available on record must be properly weighed in each case to
arrive at a proper conclusion. The court must satisfy itself that the
person making the dying declaration was conscious and fit to make
statement for which purposes not only the evidence of persons
recording the dying declaration but also cumulative effect of the other
evidence including the medical evidence and the circumstances must
be taken into consideration.
48. In Uttam v. State of Maharashtra 4, the Apex Court also
considered the evidentiary value of dying declaration. In paragraph
no.15 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held as under:
“15. In cases involving multiple dying declarations
made by the deceased, the question that arises for
consideration is as to which of the said dying3
. (2002) 6 SCC 710
4
. (2022) 8 SCC 576
41
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017declarations ought to be believed by the court and
what would be the guiding factors for arriving at a
just and lawful conclusion. The problem becomes
all the more knotty when the dying declarations
made by the deceased are found to be
contradictory. Faced with such a situation, the
court would be expected to carefully scrutinise the
evidence to find out as to which of the dying
declarations can be corroborated by other material
evidence produced by the prosecution. Of equal
significance is the condition of the deceased at the
relevant point in time, the medical evidence
brought on record that would indicate the physical
and mental fitness of the deceased, the scope of the
close relatives/family members having
influenced/tutored the deceased and all the other
attendant circumstances that would help the court
in exercise of its discretion.”
49. In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab5, the Apex Court held
that acceptability of a dying declaration is greater because the
declaration is made in extremity. When the party is at the verge of
death, one rarely finds any motive to tell falsehood and it is for this
reason that the requirements of oath and cross-examination are
dispensed with in case of a dying declaration. Since the accused has
5
. (2008) 4 SCC 265
42
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
no power of cross-examination, the court would insist that the dying
declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of
the court in its truthfulness and correctness. The court should ensure
that the statement was not as a result of tutoring or prompting or a
product of imagination. It is for the court to ascertain from the
evidence placed on record that the deceased was in a fit state of mind
and had ample opportunity to observe and identify the culprit.
Normally, the court places reliance on the medical evidence for
reaching the conclusion whether the person making a dying
declaration was in a fit state of mind, but where the person recording
the statement states that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state,
the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that since there
is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of mind of the
declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable. What is essential is
that the person recording the dying declaration must be satisfied that
the deceased was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved by the
testimony of the Magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the
statement without there being the doctor’s opinion to that effect, it can
be acted upon provided the court ultimately holds the same to be
voluntary and truthful. A certificate by the doctor is essentially a rule
43
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
of caution and, therefore, the voluntary and truthful nature of a
statement can be established otherwise.
50. In the light of the aforesaid principle and combined with
other evidence, such as medical report and eyewitness testimony, the
dying declaration is a strong and independent proof of the accused’s
guilt. Therefore, the prosecution successfully proves that the accused
committed the aforesaid offence.
51. Learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence
on record and rightly convicted the accused for the charge under
Section – 302. There is no perversity, illegality, or mis-appreciation of
evidence warranting interference by the High Court. Accordingly, the
conviction and sentence imposed by learned trial Court deserve to be
confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
52. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed
confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded and
imposed against the appellant – accused vide judgment dated
28.04.2016 in S.C. No.760 of 2013 by learned Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
44
KL,J & BRMR,J
Crl.A. No.757 of 2017
53. The appellant – accused is on bail vide order dated
19.12.2022 in I.A. No.1 of 2022 in Crl.A. No.757 of 2017. Therefore,
the appellant – accused is directed to surrender before learned
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar,
within one (01) month from today for serving out remaining sentence
of imprisonment. If he fails to surrender, learned Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, shall take
necessary steps in accordance with law.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
____________________________
B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
16th April, 2026
Mgr