Holding

The dying declaration was not reliable and cannot form the sole basis of conviction; the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and are acquitted.

Summary

The case involved an acid attack on G. Janardhan, resulting in his death. The prosecution’s case against accused A‑1 and A‑2 rested mainly on a dying declaration recorded by a magistrate, which alleged that the deceased had named the accused. The trial and High Courts accepted this declaration despite the absence of any endorsement by a doctor or magistrate confirming the deceased’s physical and mental fitness, and despite the suppression of an earlier dying declaration recorded on hospital chits. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the dying declaration, the lack of corroborative eyewitness evidence, and the failure to disclose the first statement, finding that the declaration was doubtful and not reliable. Consequently, the Court held that conviction cannot be based solely on such a doubtful dying declaration and that the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt, leading to their acquittal.

Issues considered

The admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration recorded by the magistrate.
Whether the prosecution proved the identity of A‑1 and A‑2 beyond reasonable doubt.
The effect of suppression of the first dying declaration and lack of medical endorsement on the evidentiary value of the later declaration.
Whether a conviction can rest solely on a doubtful dying declaration without corroboration.
Application of the benefit of doubt principle in criminal convictions.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 164
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 32
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 302, s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

murderdying declarationbenefit of doubtacid attackSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 307 IPCSection 164 CrPCevidence suppressionacquittal

Judgment

[2008) 3 S.C.R. 413

'
J. RAMULU A
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2006)
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
8
.,._
(P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.)

Penal Code, 1860; S.302 rlw S.34/Evidence Act, 1872;
S.32:

Murder - Accused persons A 1 and A2 allegedly thrown c
acid on face, neck and chest of deceased resulting in his death
- Conviction based on dying declaration allegedly tutored by
relatives - Correctness of - Held: Prosecution witnesses did
not depose in their statement that they witnessed the incident
nor the deceased in his dying declaration disclosed names of D
l ._..
the accused - Son of the deceased deposed that his father
had disclosed names of accused persons in his dying
declaration to Magistrate after having tutored by relatives - In
cross-examination, he categorically stated that he did not know
the persons who poured acid on the face of his father - Oral E
evidence of eyewitness also did not support the prosecution
version - Prosecution witnesses, being relatives of tfle
deceased, are the truthful witnesses whose testimony cannot
be doubted - Moreover, neither the Magistrate nor the medical
T
officer made any endorsement on the proceedings of dying F
declaration that the declarant was in physically and mentally
fit state of mind to make the statement - Hence,. dying
declaration in question not free from doubt and embellishment
- Investigating officer also recorded the declaration of the
deceased on small chits of paper when he was admitted in the
G
hospital but these chits were not placed on record - Names of
accused A 1 and A2 were not disclosed by the deceased even
• • before I. 0. - Suppression and withholding of first dying
declaration recorded by I. 0. by itself creates suspicion and
413 H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

I
A reasonable doubt as to the correctness and truthfulness of the
dying declaration - Medical report also reveals that a number
of questions raised have not been satisfactorily answered,
which precluded implicit acceptance of the dying declaration
- Conviction cannot be vested solely on the basis of a doubtful
s dying declaration - Under the circumstances, Courts below
were wrong in convicting accused A 1 and A2 for committing
the offence of murder on the basis of weak and slender
evidence - A1 and A2 are entitled to benefit of doubt, hence,
acquitted of the charges leveled against them - Directions
C issued - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 164 -
Testimony of relative witnesses - Reliance upon.
Accused persons, viz., A-1, A-2 and the deceased
were partners in a Rice Mill. Having developed some
disputes amongst the partners, the deceased filed a Civil
D Suit against them for dissolution of the partnership. He
had also filed a criminal complaint against them. On the
fateful day, when the deceased was on his way. to home
and A1 and A2 were coming from the rice mill road side
on a Scooter, A1 allegedly sprinkled acid on the face of
E the deceased, who shouted for help. On hearing the same,
his wife, son and daughter immediately came to his rescue
and took him to a Hospital for medical treatment. PW-1
lodged a complaint in the Police Station. On the basis of
the complaint, FIR was registered under Section 307 read
F with Section 34 of IPC. The Police started investigation of
the case. 1.0. went to the Hospital and recorded the
statements of PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4. On the next day, the
Investigating Officer recovered burnt leaves of small
plants and acid-mixed earth and control earth from the
G place of occurrence and also went to the Hospital, where
the deceased in the injured condition gave his statement
by gestures and writing on small chits. The statement of
the deceased was recorded after obtaining permission
from the Medical Officer. On the same day, the
Investigating Officer apprehended A-1 and A-2 and
H
J. RAMULU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 415

.. ,
recorded the disclosure statement of A-1, and on the basis A
of the said statement, seized the scooter allegedly used
by accused in the commission of the crime and one green
colour mug was taken into possession. Later, the
Metropolitan Magistrate also went to the Hospital and
recorded statement made by the deceased by gestures 8
and signs as the injured was unable to see and talk due
~ ., to the injuries. On receipt of the information about death
of the deceased, the Police converted the offence in the
FIR from s. 307 IPC to s. 302 IPC. After completion of the
investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Police against
nine accused persons including accused A1 & A2. Trial
c
Court found A-1 and A-2 guilty of committing murder of
the deceased, convicted and sentenced them to life
imprisonment. While no case has been found against A-
3, A-4 and A-6 to A-9, they were acquitted of the charge,
and A-5 had expired, therefore, the trial stood abated D
• against him. Aggrieved against the Judgment and Order
of the Trial Court, A-1 and A-2 filed appeal under Section
37 4 (2) of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence. Hence,
the present appeals. E
Accused contended that in the Hospital record
where the deceased was admitted in injured condition, it
was specifically recorded that some unknown offenders
had thrown acid on the face of the injured deceased; that
the first recorded information, being the intimation by the F
Hospital authorities referring to unknown persons as the
culprits, has been suppressed; that PW-1, son of the
deceased, in his statement has clearly stated that the
..I
I
names of A-1 and A-2 were disclosed at the instance of
the relatives of the deceased, on the basis of which tutored G
FIR came to be registered which was corroborated by PW-
4, daughter-in-law of the deceased; and that the dying
~
~
'
declaration recorded by PW-11 - the Magistrate mentioning
their names along with the names of A-3 to A-9, was as a
result of due deliberation and tutoring of the deceased H
'
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A by his relatives; that the statement allegedly made by the '
deceased before the Magistrate was vague and there is
no specific reference implicating them in the commission
of the offence; and that the trial Court and the High Court
have considered the alleged dying declaration as partly
B untrue in respect of accused A-3 to A-9, who were
acquitted of the charges and partly true against A-1 and
A-2 without any corroboration from independent evidence
and, therefore, no implicit reliance could have been placed ••
on tutored dying declaration.
c Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Prosecution witnesses, the family
members of the deceased, the alleged witnesses of the
occurrence have not supported the case of the
prosecution at all and despite searching cross-
D
examination by the Public Prosecutor, no material
evidence is elicited from their testimony to implicate v
'
A-1 and A-2 in the commission of the crime. (Para - 10)
(424-F, G]
E 1.2 PW-1, son of the deceased, deposed before the
Court that he gave complaint to the Police at the instance
of their relatives. Even this witness did not say in his
statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure that he and his sister (PW-2), his mother (PW-
F 3) and his wife (PW-4) witnessed the incident and/or his
father disclosed the names of A-1 and A-2 who sprinkled
acid on his face. (Para - 10) (424-G; 425-A, B]
1.3 PW-1 categorically stated that he noticed two
unknown persons going on scooter at the place of
G occurrence. PW-1 deposed that his father had given the
names of A-1 and A-2 and other seven accused persons
to PW-11 the Magistrate, on having tutored by their
relatives. This witness in cross-examination conducted ,
by the counsel for A-1 and A-2 categorically stated that he
H did not know the persons who poured acid on the face of
J. RAMULU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 417

his father. (Para - 10) [425-C, DJ A
1.4 PW2, daughter of the deceased, deposed that she
did not know who caused acid burns injuries to her father.
She denied the suggestion of the prosecution that she
deposed against the prosecution in order to help the
accused. (Para - 11) [425-G; 426-AJ · B

1.5 PW-3, wife of the deceased, deposed that she did
. ~
not see the persons who caused acid burns to him. The
suggestion of the Public Prosecutor that she has resiled
from her earlier statement in order to help A-1 and A-2, is c
denied by her. Similarly, PW4 - wife of PW-1 has not
supported the prosecution version. (Para -11) [426-A, BJ
1.6 The oral evidence of the eye-witnesses, the son,
daughter, wife and daughter-in-law of the deceased, have
not supported the prosecution version to prove that it D
were A-1 and A-2 who poured acid on the face, neck, etc.
of the deceased on the day of occurrence. PWs 1, 2, 3
and 4 are the truthful witnesses whose testimony has to
be accepted without any embellishment. The family
members of the deceased would have not spared A-1 and E
A-2, if they in fact were the real culprits who caused acid
burns injuries on his person. (Para - 12) [426-E, F, GJ
2.1 The evidence of the eye-witnesses clinches that
the deceased had named A-1 and A-2 as assailants in
dying declaration made to PW-11, the Magistrate, on the F
intervening night of 11/12.07.2000 on being tutored by his
relatives during the period 07/08.07.2000to11/12.07.2000,
when they had gone to visit him in the ward of the hospital.
PW-11 recorded original dying declaration of the deceased
in Telugu. (Para -12) [426-G; 427-AJ G

2.2 On perusal of the dying declaration, it reveals that
the deceased had given the names of A-1 and A-2 and
•
other accused persons who were acquitted by the trial
court. It has come in the cross-examination of PW-11 that H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A he did not make any endorsement on the proceedings of
the dying declaration that the declarant was physically
and mentally fit throughout the proceedings. Similarly, the
Doctor on duty also did not specifically state in his
endorsement that the declarant was physically and
8 mentally in a fit state to make the statement. PW-11 also
admitted suggestion of the defence that in the dying
declaration he did not mention that he disclosed his
identity to the declarant before recording dying ' .
declaration. (Para - 12) [427-C, D, E]
c 2.3 The dying declaration allegedly made by the
deceased is not free from doubt and embellishment. It is
the specific case of PW-13, a Sub-Inspector of Police, who
went to the hospital immediately on receipt of the
complaint and found that the deceased in injured
D conditi()n was admitted in the Hospital on 09.07.2000; that
he took the permission of the duty Doctor in regard to the
physical and mental condition of the deceased. As per
~
.
his version, the Doctor certified that injured deceased was
fit to make statement. He recorded the statement of injured
E on small chits which he did not place on record of the
case. This version of the Investigating Officer clearly and
plainly shows that on 09.07.2000, the deceased in injured
condition, made some statement to the Investigating
Officer which in all probability did not contain the names
F of A-1 and A-2 who were responsible for throwing acid on
his face, neck and chest. Those chits were important
documentary evidence which was deliberately withheld
by the prosecution from the Court with clear intention of
suppressing the true version of the deceased subscribed
by him on some paper chits at the first available
G
opportunity. (Para - 13) [427-F, G; 428-A, B, C]
2.4 PWs-2 and 4 clearly and plainly deposed that the
deceased made tutored statement to PW-11 at the behest .
of their relatives who had been the regular visitors of the
H ward where the deceased before death was lying and they
J. RAMULU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 419

had compelled the deceased to mention the names of A-1 A
and A-2 along with other accused. (Para - 13) [428-D, E]
2.5 The suppression and withholding of the first dying
declaration of the deceased recorded by PW-13, 1.0., by
itself creates suspicion and reasonable doubt as to the
correctness and truthfulness of the dying declaration B
•'" allegedly made by the deceased to PW-11, the
Metropolitan Magistrate. (Para - 13) [428-E, F]
P Mani vs. State of TN. (2006) 3 SCC 161 - relied on.
2.6 The medical report raised a number of questions C
which have not been satisfactorily answered, which
precluded implicit acceptance of the dying declaration.
(Para - 15) [429-B]
2.7 The dying declaration shows that the deceased
was not in a position to speak and see and in such state D
of mind, it is highly doubtful and unbelievable that the
deceased had written such a lengthy statement running
into more than 3 pages containing various details by sign
and gestures. The contents of the dying declaration are
shrouded by doubts and suspicion and the entire E
evidence suggests that the dying declaration does not
reveal the entire truth, it has to be considered only as a
piece of evidence on which no implicit reliance can be
placed and in which event conviction cannot be rested
solely on the basis of such doubtful dying declaration. In F
the facts and circumstances, this Court is not satisfied
with the findings recorded by the Trial Judge and the High
Court holding A-1 and A-2 guilty of the offence on the basis
of weak and slender evidence led on record by the
prosecution. Hence, A-1 and A-2 are entitled to benefit of G
doubt. Accordingly, the judgments of the High Court and
the Trial Court are set aside and A-1 and A-2 are acquitted
of the charges levelled against them. (Paras - 15 & 16)
[429-F, G; 430-A, B, CJ
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A No. 758 of 2006.
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 2006.
Sushil Kumar, A. Dasharatha, Aditya Kumar and Naveen
8 R. Nath for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 758/2006.
'
U.U. Lalit, Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellant in Criminal
" .
Appeal No. 763 of 2op6.
Altaf Fathima (for D. Bharathi Reddy) for the Respondent.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. The above-said two
appeals relate to single incident and are directed against
common Judgment dated 22nd December, 2005 passed by the
D High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in '
Criminal Appeal No.2290 of 2004, they are heard together and
shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2006 has been filed by G.
E Venkatesh (A-1) against his conviction under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] and sentence to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default
thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Criminal
Appeal No,758 of 2006 has been filed by J. Ramulu (A-2)
F against his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34
of IPC and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and to
pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default thereof to suffer simple
imprisonment for two months, passed by II Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and confirmed by the
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2290 of 2004.
G
3. In all, nine accused persons were tried by the II Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Sessions Case
No.352 of 2001 for the offences under Section 302, IPC, and
Section 302, IPC, read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 109
H of IPC. A-1 and A-2 were found guilty of the murder of
J. RAMULU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 421
• [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

G.Janardhan, while other seven accused were acquitted of the A
charges.
4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against A-1,
A-2 and other accused persons is that G. Janardhan was
resident of Anandnagar Colony, Malakpet. A-1 is resident of
R. K. Puram, whereas A-2 and A-7 are residents of Dilshuknagar B
...,, and A-3 and A-6 are residents ofChaitanyapuri. A-4 is resident
of Vanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District, A-5 is resident of
Kothakota, Mahaboobnagar District, and A-8 & A-9 are
residents of Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar District. A-1, A-2 and
G. Janardhan were partners in Manjunadha Rice Mill and they c
had some disputes between themselves and other partners
regarding the mill transactions. G. Janardhan filed O.S. No.92
of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy, against A-1 and A-2 for dissolution of the partnership of
A the mill. Second suit O.S.No.579 of 1994 on the file of the II D
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, is also pending
between the parties. G. Janardhan also filed C.C. No.114 of
1998 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Hyderabad, inter alia alleging that the accused persons cheated
him in the transactions of the rice mill. E
5. On 08.07.2000 at about 4.00 R.M., G. Janardhan along
with his eldest paternal uncle G. Satyanarayana went to
Ramkrishna Muth and after completin·g of their prayers, they
~
came back to their residence by city bus. After getting down
from the bus, G. Satyanarayana went to his house, while G. F
Janardhan proceeded to go to his house. A-1 and A-2 stated to
have come from the rice mill road on a Scooter. A-1 was pillion
rider, he sprinkled acid on the face of G. Janardhan with a Mug.
G. Jandardhan shouted for help which attracted the attention of
G. Raju, son (PW-1), Jamuna Rani, dalJflhter (PW-2), G. Savithri, G
wife of G. Janardhan (PW-3), who were sitting in the verandah
}
of their house. They immediately came to the spot and took G.
Janardhan to Yashoda Hospital for medical treatment. G.
Janardhan received burn injuries on his face, chest and neck.
PW-1 went to the Police Station Chaderghat, Hyderabad and H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
•
A handed over complaint (Ex.P1) to Shri 8. Sivaranireddy (PW-
9), who, at the relevant time, was Sub-Inspector of the Police
Station, Chaderghat. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR
(Ex.P26) was registered under Section 307 read with Section
34 of IPC. G. Guravaiah (PW-13), Sub-Inspector of Police took
B up investigation of the crime at 10.20 P.M. on the same day. He
went to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, where injured G. Janardhan
was admitted in emergency ward. He recorded the statements ••
of PWs-1, 2, 3 and G. Anuradha (PW-4) wife of PW-1 and
daughter-in-law of injured G. Janardhan. On the next day, i.e.
c 09.07.2000, at about 7.00 A.M., the Investigating Officer
recovered burnt leaves of small plants and acid-mixed earth
and control earth from the place of occurrence. He again went
to Yashoda Hospital where the injured G. Janardhan gave his
statement by gestures and writing on small chits to him. The
statement of injured G. Janardhan was recorded after obtaining
0
permission from the Doctor. On the same day at about 8.00
P.M., the Investigating Officer apprehended A-1 and A-2 on the
road in front of the house of A-1. He recorded the disclosure
statement of A-1 which is marked as Ex.P24 and on the basis
of the said statement, Scooter bearing No. AP 28 L 2745 was
E recovered and one green colour mug was taken into possession,
from inside the ducky of the Scooter. On requisition Ex.P27 sent
by the Inspector of Police, B. Gyaneshwar Rao (PW-11) XIV
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, at midnight of 11/
12.07.2000, went to Yashoda Hospital and recorded statement
F made by G. Janardhan to him by gestures and signs as the
injured was unable to see and talk due to burn injuries. On
25.07.2000, P. William Caruy (PW-12) received information in
regard to the death of injured G.Janardhan at about 12.30 A.M.
He converted the offence in the FIR from Section 307 of IPC to
G Section 302 of IPC. After receipt of the dead body and
completion of the investigation. charge-sheet was filed against
the above-said nine accused persons.
'
6. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and
claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 13
H
J. RAMULU v. STATE· OF ANDHRA PRADESH 423
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
•
witnesses and produced on record 32 documents in support of A
its case. The accused persons in their statements recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded not guilty to the charges
and claimed to be tried. No defence witness has been examined
by them. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the charge B
of murder of G. Janardhan and convicted and sentenced them
"· 1 as aforesaid, while no case has been found against A-3, A-4
and A-6 to A-9, therefore they are acquitted of the charge. During
the pendency of the trial, A-5 had expired, therefore, the trial
stood abated against him. c
7. Being aggrieved against the Judgment and Order of
the learned Trial Judge, A-1 and A-2 filed appeal under Section
374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court
dismissed their appeal and confirmed their sentence. Hence,
A-1 and A-2 have filed these appeals by special leave. D
.I> 'v

8. We have heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of A-1, Mr. Sushi! Kumar, learned senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of A-2, and Ms. Altaf Fathima,
Advocate for respondent-State, and with their assistance, we
have examined the entire oral and documentary evidence on E
record. The learned counsel for A-1 and A-2, inter alia,
contended: (a) that in the Yashoda Hospital record where injured
G. Janardhan was admitted on 08.07.2000, it was specifically
.. stated therein that some unknown offenders had thrown acid on
the face of the injured G. Janardhan, the general diary number F
column in the FIR has been left blank, which would S!Uggest that
the first recorded information, being the intimation by the Hospital
authorities referring to unknown persons as the culprits, has been
suppressed; (b) PW-1, the son of G. Janardhan, clearly stated
that on the evening of 09.07.2000, Police got complaint (Ex.P1) G
made from him in which the names of A-1 and A-2 were
~
disclosed at the instance of their relatives, on the basis of which
tutored FIR (Ex.P25) came to be registered; (c) PW-4, daughter-
in-law of G. Janardhan, also clearly stated that Police got
complaint (Ex.P1) recorded from her husband (PW-1) at the H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
•

A instance of their relatives; and (d) the so-called dying declaration
(Ex.P28) recorded by PW-11 -the Magistrate, on 11/12.07.2000
at midnight mentioning the names of A-1 and A-2 along with the
names of A-3 to A-9, was as a result of due deliberation and
tutoring of G. Janardhan by his relatives as per the admission of
B PW-1 and the statement allegedly made by G. Janardhan before
the Magistrate was vague and there is no specific reference to ••
A-1 and A-2 implicating them in the commission of the offence.
Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the trial court and the
High Court have considered the alleged dying declaration as
c partly untrue in respect of accused A-3 to A-9, who were
acquitted of the charges and partly true against A-1 and A-2
without any corroboration from independent evidence and,
therefore, no implicit reliance could have been placed on tutored
dying declaration.
D 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of .
the respondent-State contended that the evidence of PW-11 is
very clear, who recorded dying declaration. (Ex.P28) of G.
Janardhan in which the names of A-1 andA-2, who poured acid
on his face which caused his death, were mentioned by the
E deceased. The learned counsel also contended that the trial
court as well as the High Court have appreciated the entire
evidence in its right perspective and this Court shall be slow to
interfere in the well-reasoned and well- merited judgments of
the courts below.
F 10. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration
to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties. We may, at the outset, record that PW-1, son, PW-2,
daughter, PW-3, wife, and PW-4, daughter-in-law of G.
Janardhan, the alleged witnesses of the occurrence, have not
G supported the case of the prosecution at all and despite
searching cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor,
no material evidence is elicited from their testimony to implicate
A-1 and A-2 in the commission of the crime. PW-1, the son of
the deceased, on 08.07.2000 submitted report (Ex.P1) to the
H police at Police Station, Chaderghat, on the basis of which FIR
J. RAMULU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 425
~ [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

(Ex.P25) was registered at the Police Station. He deposed A
before !he Court that he gave complaint (Ex.P1) to the Police at
the instance of their relatives. Even this witness did not say in
his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure that he and his sister (PW-2), his mother (PW-3)
and his wife (PW-4) witnessed the _incident and/or his father 8
disclosed the names of A-1 and A-2 who sprinkled acid on his
.. l
face. It is his evidence that on the day of the occurrence they
heard the sound of cry of his father near the gate of their house
and he along with PWs-2 and 3 rushed to the spot and found
· acid burns on the face and neck of his father who was not in a c
position to speak nor he could open his eyes. The incident took
place in front of the house of injured G. Janardhan at around 8
PM. PW-1 categorically stated that he noticed two unknown
persons going on Scooter at the place of occurrence. PW-1
deposed that his father had given the names of A-1 and A-2
~ D
and other seven accused persons to PW-11 the Magistrate, on
having tutored by their relatives. This witness in cross-
examination conducted by the learned counsel for A-1 and A-2
categorically stated that he did not know the persons who poured
acid on the face of his father. It is his evidence that their relatives
came to Yashoda Hospital where his father was taken E
immediately after the incident. The Police also reached at the
Hospital and wanted to record his father's statement but his
father was not in a position to speak, so his statement could not
.. be recorded. He stated that his father before the incident had
been telling him that naxalites were threatening him with dire F
consequences, if money was not paid to them.
11. PW-2 - daughter of G. Janardhan, deposed that on
the day of incident, i.e. 08.07.2000, she was not at the house of
her parents, but she was at a house in Warasiguda when at
G
about 7.00 or 7.30 P.M. she received telephone call that her.
father had. been taken to Yashoda Hospital for medical treatment
for acid burns. She deposed that she did not know who caused
acid burns injuries to her father. She denied the suggestion of
the prosecution that she deposed against the prosecution in
, H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A order to help the accused. It is the evidence of PW3 - wife of
the deceased that on 08.07.2000 at about 7.30 or 8.00 P.M.
when she was in her house, she heard some sound of cry. She
came out of her house and saw her husband coming inside the
gate of their house, who was unable to speak. He was shifted
B to Yashoda Hospital as he received acid burns. She did not
see the persons who caused acid burns to him. The suggestion
of the Public Prosecutor that she has resiled from her earlier
' .
statement in order to help A-1 and A-2, is denied by her.
Similarly, PW4 -wife of PW-1 has not supported the prosecution
c version. According to this witness, her father-in-law received
acid burns at 7.30 or 8.00 P.M. near their house when she along
with her husband and mother-in-law was present in the house.
They took injured G.Janardhan to Yashoda Hospital where he
was admitted in emergency ward. She was not allowed to go
inside the ward while PWs 1, 2 and 3 were allowed to go inside
0
the ward. Their relatives were also present in the hospital. In ., ...
cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, she stated
that her father-in-law was in Intensive Care Unit for 15 days and
thereafter he was shifted to Apollo Hospital. Their relatives were
regularly visiting her father-in-law in the unit. She stated that on
E 09.07.2000, their relatives and police got a report drafted from
her husband againstA-1 and A-2.
12. The oral evidence of the eye-witnesses, discussed
above, who are none else than the son, daughter, wife and
F daughter-in-law of the deceased, have not supported the •
prosecution version to prove that it were A-1 and A-2 who poured
acid on the face, neck, etc. of the deceased - G.Janardhan on
the day of occurrence. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the truthful
witnesses whose testimony has to be accepted without any
G embellishment. The family members of G. Janardhan would have
not spared A-1 and A-2, if they in fact were the real culprits who
caused acid burns injuries on his person. The evidence of the
eye-witnesses clinches that the deceased had named A-1 and
A-2 as assailants in dying declaration made to PW-11, the
Magistrate, on the intervening night of 11/12.07.2000 on being
H
J. RAMULU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 427
., [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

tutored by his relatives during the period 07108.07 .2000 to 11 I A
12.07.2000, when they had gone to visit him in the ward of the
hospital. PW-11 recorded original dying declaration of the
deceased G.Janardhan in Telugu. The evidence of PW-11 would
show that on 11/12.07.2000 at 12 O' Clock mid-night he
received requisition (Ex.P27) from the Inspector of Police, Police B
Station Chaderghat requesting him to record dying declaration
•• of G.Janardhan at Yashoda Hospital. He stated that the declarant
was not able to speak and see due to burn injuries but he was
responding by gestures to the questions put to him. He gave
him pen and a paper to write his statement who wrote the c
answers on the proceedings of the dying declaration. On perusal
of the dying declaration, it reveals that the deceased had given
the names of A-1 and A-2 and other accused persons who were
acquitted by the trial court. It has come in the cross-examination
of PW-11 that he did not make any endorsement on the
D
; •.. proceedings of the dying declaration that the declarant was
physically and mentally fit throughout the proceedings. Similarly,
the Doctor on duty also did not specifically state in his
endorsement that the declarant was physically and mentally in
a fit state to make the statement. PW-11 also admitted
suggestion of the defence that in Ex.P28 he did not mention E
~t he disclosed his identity to the declarant before recording
ying declaration.

13. We have carefully examined the reasons recorded by
the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court for accepting F
the dying declaration as credible and for accepting the Pvidence
of Magistrate who recorded the alleged dying declaration
(Ex.P28) as bringing home the charge of murder against A-1
and A-2 beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. The dying
declaration allegedly made by the deceased, in our view, is not
G
free from doubt and embellishment It is the specific case of
PW-13 G. Guravaiah, Sub-Inspector, who went to the hospital
~ • immediately on receipt of the complaint (Ex.P1) and found
injured G.Janardhan admitted in the Yashoda Hospital on
09.07.2000 that he took the permission of the duty Doctor in
H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
...
A regard to the physical and mental condition of the deceased.
As per his version, the Doctor certified that injured G.Janardhan
was fit to make statement. He recorded the statement of injured
G.Janardhan on small chits which he did not place on record of
the case. This version of the Investigating Officer clearly and
B plainly shows that on 09.07.2000 G.Janardhan made some
statement to the Investigating Officer which in all probability did
not contain the names of A-1 and A-2 who were responsible for ••
throwing acid on his face, neck and chest. Those chits were
important documentary evidence which was deliberately
c withheld by the prosecution from the Court with clear intention
of suppressing the true version of G. Janardhan subscribed by
him on some paper chits at the first available opportunity.
G.Janardhan remained in Yashoda Hospital from 08.07.2000
till 24.07.2000 on which date he left the hospital and got himself
admitted in Apollo Hospital where he died on the next day. The
D
medical report of Yashoda Hospital reveals that injured
G.Janardhan had refused to undergo surgery and got discharged '
from the hospital against medical advice. PWs-2 and 4 clearly
and plainly deposed that the deceased made tutored statement
to PW-11 at the behest of their relatives who had been the regular
E visitors of the ward where the deceased before death was lying
and they had compelled the deceased to mention the names of
A-1 and A-2 along with other accused. The suppression and
withholding of the first dying declaration of the deceased
recorded by PW-13 on 09.07.2000, by itself creates suspicion
F and reasonable doubt as to the correctness and truthfulness of
the dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased to PW-
11, XIV Metropolitan Magistrate.
14. This Court in P Mani v. State of TN. [(2006) 3 SCC
161], while dealing with the question of dying declaration, held
G
that conviction can be recorded on the basis of the dying
declaration alone but the same must be wholly reliable. In a case
where suspicion can be raised as regards the correctness of • ....
the dying declaration, the Court before convicting an accused
on the basis thereof would look for some corroborative
H
J. RAMULU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 429
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
~

evidence. Suspicion is. no substitute for proof. If evidence A
brought on records suggests that such dying declaration does
not reveal the entire truth, it may be considered only as a piece
of evidence in which event conviction may not be rested only on
the basis thereof. The question as to whether a dying declaration
is of impeccable character would depend upon several factors; B
physical and mental condition of the deceased is one of them.
... 15. As noticed above, the medical report raised a number
of questions which have not been satisfactorily answered, which
precluded implicit acceptance of the dying declaration (Ex.P28).
First, PWs 1 and 3, who took injured G.Janardhan to Apollo c
Hospital and got him admitted there, have deposed that at that
time G.Janardhan was not physically and mentally fit to make
the statement. Second, who was the doctor on duty at the time
of admission? PWs-1 and 2 did not say about it and the history
sheet reveals that the injured was alleged to have sustained D
multiple burns over face and upper part of chest and neck when
attacked with acid by unknown persons near his residence at
about 8.15 P.M. PW-13 recorded the first dying declaration of
the injured G.Janardhan on 09.07.2000 in the presence of some
doctor, but the name of the Doctor has not been mentioned by E
him. The Doctor, in whose presence PW-11 recorded dying
declaration (Ex.P28), has not been examined by the prosecution
to corroborate the correctness and truthfulness of the dying
declaration on which conviction of A-1 and A-2 has been
, recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, F
while the same document was not accepted by the courts below
in respect of A-3 to A-9 whose names were also mentioned in
the dying declaration. The dying declaration shows that the
deceased was not in a position to speak and see and in such
state of mind, it is highly doubtful and unbelievable that the
G
deceased had written such a lengthy statement running into more
than 3 pages containing various details by sign and gestures.
The contents of the dying declaration are shrouded by doubts
> • and suspicion and the entire evidence, discussed above,
suggests that the dying declaration does not reveal the entire
H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A truth, it has to be considered only as a piece of evidence on
which no implicit reliance can be placed and in which event
conviction cannot be rested solely on the basis of such doubtful
dying declaration. In the facts and circumstances, we are not
satisfied with the findings recorded by the Trial Judge and the
B High Court holding A-1 and A-2 guilty of the offence on the basis
of weak and slender evidence led on record by the prosecution.
••
16. In our view, A-1 and A-2 are entitled to benefit of doubt.
In the result, we allow the appeals and set aside the judgments
of the High Court and the Trial Court. A-1 and A-2 are acquitted
C of the charges against them.
'17. G. Venkatesh and J. Ramulu shall be set at liberty
forthwith, unless required to be detained in connection with any
other case.
D S.K.S. Appeals allowed.