This criminal appeal challenged the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, which convicted the appellant-husband for the murder of his wife, who died from 96% acute burn injuries. The prosecution alleged that the appellant poured kerosene and set her ablaze following an altercation over missing money. The Supreme Court, upon review, noted severe discrepancies: the medical evidence questioned the victim’s physical capacity to give a coherent dying declaration with 96% burns, the timeline and recording of the dual dying declarations were highly suspicious, the immediate family members turned hostile and supported a theory of suicide due to ailments, and homicidal death was never definitively established. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and life sentence, giving the appellant the benefit of the doubt and ordering his immediate release.
- Unproven Homicidal Death: The post-mortem certificate showed 96% burns across the victim’s body—including the scalp—suggesting she may have doused herself, and the prosecution failed to conclusively rule out suicide or clearly prove a homicidal act.
- Doubtful Dying Declarations: The two recorded dying declarations suffered from suspicious timings, conflicting motives, and contradictions. Notably, the first dying declaration purportedly recorded by a dead Head Constable had an inexplicable 15-hour delay before registration as an FIR, and the medical testimony cast strong doubts on a 96% burn victim’s ability to give a coherent statement.
- Testimony of Close Relatives: Immediate relatives (sister, cousin, and mother) turned hostile to the prosecution in court, testifying that the victim died by suicide due to physical ailments (stomachaches and fits), that the accused was actually present trying to douse the fire, and that no severe marital discord existed.
- Improper Evaluation of Hostile Witnesses: The High Court erred in dismissing the relatives’ testimonies as an “afterthought” based on unproven Section 161 statements without properly confronting the witnesses or the Investigating Officer with formal contradictions.
- Inapplicable Section 106 Presumption: The evidentiary burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain unnatural death inside a marital home did not strictly apply to pin guilt on the husband, given that defense evidence established his presence attempting to save the victim from the flames.
- Final Disposition: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed that the appellant be set free and his bail bonds cancelled if not required in any other case.
2026 INSC 832
Jupudi Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (D.O.J. 11.08.2026)
Loading Viewer...
