The Andhra Pradesh High Court has acquitted a man who was earlier convicted for culpable homicide in the death of his wife due to burn injuries, holding that the trial court ignored crucial evidence and relied on inconsistent dying declarations.
Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi allowed the criminal appeal filed by Dudekula Somaiah and set aside his 2009 conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the deceased woman suffered severe burn injuries at her house in Kurnool district on January 12, 2007. The case alleged that the accused, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, abused and harassed his wife, after which she poured kerosene on herself. It was further alleged that the accused lit a matchstick and threw it on her, causing the burns.
The woman later died in hospital due to septicemia arising from burn injuries. The Sessions Court at Nandyal convicted the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting him of charges under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC.
Challenging the conviction, the accused approached the High Court.
Before the High Court, the defence argued that the first statement made by the deceased to the duty doctor immediately after admission to hospital was completely different from the later statements recorded by the police and a Judicial Magistrate.
The Court noted that the doctor’s entry in the hospital accident register stated that the woman suffered burn injuries while sleeping in the hut when a fire accident occurred.
Justice Chakravarthi observed that this statement, marked as Ex.P-13, was the earliest version given by the deceased and was inconsistent with the later dying declarations blaming the accused.
“The first dying declaration recorded in the case would be Ex.P-13 i.e., by the doctor at the time of admission of patient in the hospital,” the Court observed.
The High Court further found that the prosecution had not properly placed this document before the trial court during the main evidence stage.
The Court also relied heavily on the testimony of the couple’s young son, who stated that the family was sleeping inside the thatched house when it caught fire accidentally. According to the child witness, his mother pushed him and his sibling out to save them and sustained burn injuries herself.
The bench noted that the prosecution did not cross-examine the child witness on this aspect or attempt to discredit his testimony.
The Court further pointed out that doctors who treated or examined the deceased did not mention noticing any smell of kerosene on her body, weakening the prosecution’s theory that kerosene had been poured intentionally.
Referring to Supreme Court rulings on multiple dying declarations, the High Court said courts must carefully examine surrounding evidence where different dying declarations contradict each other.
“The duty of the Court is to examine the rest of the materials in the form of evidence placed before the court,” the bench noted while discussing the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Court held that the trial judge ignored material evidence, including the first statement recorded by the doctor and the testimony of the child witness.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. The Court also directed refund of the fine amount, if already paid, and cancelled the bail bonds.
Case Title: Dudekula Somaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 2009
Judge: Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi
Decision Date: April 23, 2026
