STATE OF A P Vs. P KHAJA HUSSAIN
LAWS(SC)-2009-4-245
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
April 15,2009
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
P.KHAJA HUSSAIN
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
BUNTY GUPTA @ SURENDRA GUPTA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-9-367] [REFERRED]BHADRAGIRI VENKATA RAVI VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MANOHAR @ MANU CHANCHALDAS SINDHI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
MANI @ MANIKANDAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-978] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN S/O HAZARI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-156] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. BIMLA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2017-3-149] [REFERRED TO]
KALAGATLA HASANAIAH ALIAS HASAN VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
DEV SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-2-268] [REFERRED TO]
MAN SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2024-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF GUJARAT VS. BHARATBHAI DEVABHAI DODIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2016-3-228] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYAPRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2010-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAPALLI SATYANARAYANA ALIAS SATTIBABU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2011-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
VACHASPATI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
SARFARAJ ALIAS GUDDU AND 2 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-273] [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RAJESHBHAI LAXMAN MAKWANA [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-372] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATH S/O GORURAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-1-297] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. KHATKI YUNUS MAMADBHAI AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-7-608] [REFERRED TO]
VEERPAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-91] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. MANOHAR LAL SON OF LATE SHRI BAKSHI RAM, R/O VILLAGE DHATOLI, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTT. MANDI, H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2012-7-341] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED YUSUF ALLAUDDIN ANSARI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SHRAVAN RAM [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESHBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2014-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. -
(1.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool had found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonemnt for life.
(2.)According to the prosecution version on 2/8/1999 the accused poured kerosene over his wife Pinjari Hussain Bee (hereinafer referred to as the deceased) and set her on fire. The prosecution version primarily restrained on two dying declarations purported to have been recorded by the Magistrate and by a police official. First dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate on 2/8/1999 on 11.30 a.m. which is Ex. P. 15. Later on another dying declaration Ex. P. 20 was recorded by the Head Constable PW.12 after about one hour of the first dying declaration. The High Court noticed that there was variation between the two dying declarations about the manner in which the deceased was set on fire. In fact that the two dying declarations can be reconciled with each other and since no other evidence was available to connect accused with crime the conviction as recorded was held to be not sustainable. Accordingly acquittal was directed.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the appellant - State submitted that the variation between the two dying declarations was not very significant and the High Court should not have discarded the subsequent dying declaration on the ground that it was at variance with the first dying declaration.
(2.)According to the prosecution version on 2/8/1999 the accused poured kerosene over his wife Pinjari Hussain Bee (hereinafer referred to as the deceased) and set her on fire. The prosecution version primarily restrained on two dying declarations purported to have been recorded by the Magistrate and by a police official. First dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate on 2/8/1999 on 11.30 a.m. which is Ex. P. 15. Later on another dying declaration Ex. P. 20 was recorded by the Head Constable PW.12 after about one hour of the first dying declaration. The High Court noticed that there was variation between the two dying declarations about the manner in which the deceased was set on fire. In fact that the two dying declarations can be reconciled with each other and since no other evidence was available to connect accused with crime the conviction as recorded was held to be not sustainable. Accordingly acquittal was directed.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the appellant - State submitted that the variation between the two dying declarations was not very significant and the High Court should not have discarded the subsequent dying declaration on the ground that it was at variance with the first dying declaration.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.