The Supreme Court has acquitted Jupudi Suresh in a 2013 case concerning the death of his wife from extensive burn injuries, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the circumstances necessary to sustain his conviction.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran found serious doubts surrounding the two dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution. The Court also noted that the medical evidence did not clearly establish whether the death was homicidal or suicidal.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, a quarrel took place between the couple on May 6, 2013. The prosecution alleged that after an argument over money, the accused poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire.
The Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court subsequently upheld the conviction. The case then reached the Supreme Court in appeal.
The prosecution relied primarily on the alleged dying declarations, the post-mortem report and the circumstances surrounding the incident. It also argued that the accused had not explained the death, which occurred inside the marital home.
Supreme Court Examines Medical Evidence
The Supreme Court closely examined the post-mortem findings. The deceased had suffered burns over about 96 per cent of her body, including the scalp, face, neck, chest, limbs, abdomen and genital area.
The Bench observed that the distribution of the burns raised a doubt about the prosecution's theory that kerosene had been poured over the deceased. The Court noted that burns on the scalp could also indicate that the deceased had doused herself with kerosene.
The medical evidence also created difficulty regarding the dying declarations. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem had stated that a person with 80 to 90 per cent burns could speak properly. Since the deceased had suffered 96 per cent burns, the Court found the alleged statements required careful scrutiny.
Dying Declarations Found Suspicious
The Bench also pointed to discrepancies concerning the recording of the first dying declaration. The statement was shown as having been recorded on May 7, 2013, while the police officer stated that he received it only at 1 am on May 8.
The Court described the delay of more than 15 hours between the alleged recording and registration of the FIR as “very crucial.” It also noted that the second dying declaration appeared to overlap in time with the first one.
The Court further found that the reasons attributed as the motive for the alleged act differed between the two dying declarations. According to the Bench, the declarations were therefore not reliable enough to support the conviction.
Evidence of Relatives Also Considered
The Supreme Court examined the evidence of the deceased's sister, cousin and mother. The Bench found that their testimony did not establish a motive for murder or directly connect the accused with the incident.
The Court also criticised the manner in which the High Court had treated their evidence. It observed that the witnesses had not been declared hostile and that their earlier statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not, by themselves, be relied upon to convict the accused.
Supreme Court's Decision
The Bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the circumstances against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also found that doubt remained over whether the death was caused by suicide.
“The prosecution failed to prove a single circumstance,” the Bench held, concluding that the conviction could not be sustained.
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and acquitted Jupudi Suresh. It directed that, if he was not already released on bail, he be set free unless required in another case.
Any existing bail bonds were ordered to stand cancelled.
Case Details:
Case Title: Jupudi Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4849 of 2025
Judge: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Decision Date: August 11, 2026
