Total summary of the judgment
Appellate Parties and Impugned Judgment
This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused, Jupudi Suresh, challenging the concurrent judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court. The appellant seeks to set aside the impugned judgment wherein the High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s order of conviction and the consequent sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him for the alleged homicidal death of his wife. [Paragraph 1]. As per the prosecution case the incident was happened in 2009 when the POCSO Act was not existed.
Factual Matrix
The genesis of the criminal proceedings stems from an incident on May 6, 2013, at the marital residence of the appellant and the deceased, situated adjacent to the deceased’s parental home. The prosecution alleged a history of marital discord and constant quarrels between the couple, asserting that the appellant, habituated to alcohol, misappropriated household funds. When confronted by the deceased, the enraged appellant purportedly poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze, resulting in 96% burn injuries over her body and her subsequent death, thereby leaving their two children orphaned. [Paragraphs 1, 4, 5].
Core Legal Arguments
The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction was vitiated by material inconsistencies regarding the motive in the two dying declarations and suspicious time discrepancies between their recording and the FIR registration. It was emphasized that the first dying declaration remained unproved due to the recording Head Constable’s demise, the autopsy surgeon admitted that only a patient with up to 80 to 90% burns would be fit to give a conscious statement, and the prime witnesses exculpated the appellant by deposing that the deceased committed suicide due to chronic ailments. Conversely, the State’s counsel defended the concurrent convictions, contending that the victim categorically inculpated the appellant in her dying declarations, which were sufficiently corroborated by the Sub-Inspector. The State further argued that the testimonies of the deceased’s relatives were rightfully discarded by the lower courts as they were won over by the defense, and the appellant’s failure to offer an explanation under Section 106 for the death in the marital home firmly established his guilt. [Paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 8, 11].
Important paragraph
Case of the prosecution
2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was residing with one Jaidev Sharma since both were serving together. On 28.06.2009, it was alleged that the appellant committed rape on the daughter of the informant, who was aged about four and a half years. When the victim returned home, her mother found that there were bloodstains on her clothes. The informant washed the victim’s clothes and gave her a bath. The informant, thereafter, called her husband as well as her father after which the First Information Report3 came to be lodged at 17.45 hours on the same day. An offence was registered and investigation was undertaken. On its completion, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and he was charged of having committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Code. The appellant denied the charge and was, accordingly, tried. The prosecution examined nine witnesses while the defence of the appellant was of complete denial.
Incident explained by the victim to her mother and in turn the mother informed the father and grandfather
8. At the outset, it would be necessary to refer to the material evidence brought on record by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the appellant. Perusal of the FIR dated 28.06.2009 lodged by the mother of the victim indicates that her brother-in-law Jaidev Sharma was residing near her house. The appellant was also residing with Jaidev Sharma. The informant’s daughter aged about five years insisted on going to the house of Jaidev Sharma despite being told not to go. Her daughter, however, went there at about 08.30 a.m. and returned back after half an hour. When the informant took her for having a bath and started removing her clothes, she started weeping. On being asked, she stated that she was sexually assaulted by the appellant. The informant stated that there were bloodstains on the pajama of her daughter and, hence, she washed the same. She, thereafter, informed her husband as well as her father. She further stated that later on the appellant had called her on her mobile phone and was seeking forgiveness. It is thereafter that the said report was lodged at about 17.45 hours on that day.
Evidence of the doctor as if no injury found in the victim’s body
9. The victim was then taken for medical examination at 09.05 p.m. on the same day. She was examined by Dr. Asha Negi, PW4. On local examination as per Exhibit PF, she noted that there was no sign of any injury, inflammation, redness, bruising or laceration on the body of the victim. There was no evidence of any seminal stain or blood and that her hymen was intact. It was stated that the final report would be given after obtaining an expert opinion of a gynaecologist. In her deposition, she stated that the final opinion was given on 05.09.2009 concluding that there was no evidence to suggest that penetration had taken place. She further stated that redness, in case of penetration in the case of a child of a tender age, would persist for twenty-four hours after a sexual assault. In her cross-examination, she stated that if a girl child was subjected to sexual intercourse by a grown-up man, she would suffer some injury on her body. However, in the present case, she stated that there was no injury found.
Though mother deposed on seeing blood in the clothes of the victim on the day of occurrence, the forensic report did not indicate that any blood was detected
11. When the aforesaid material relied upon by the prosecution is taken into consideration, it becomes clear that as per the FIR, the mother of the victim has referred to blood being found on the clothes of the victim immediately after she returned from the house of the appellant and has also referred to the act of sexual intercourse. The victim was asked various questions when she appeared as PW3. She too is firm with the stand that there were bloodstains on her clothes. Her clothes at Exhibits P-3 and P-4 were subjected to a ‘Benzidine test’ at the FSL to detect the presence of blood thereon. Similarly, Acid Phosphate test and Microscopic Examination were also carried out for the detection of semen. The final report of the FSL, however, indicates that there was no blood detected on the clothes of the victim or the undergarment of the appellant.
Forensic examination: Benzidine test in clothes veracity discussed
12. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to the submission made on behalf of the appellant as regards conduct of ‘Benzidine test’ for detecting the presence of blood. As per the Indian Journal of Modern Research and Reviews, Volume 2 Issue 6, June 2024 it has been opined in the studies conducted that blood presence could be detected by the ‘Benzidine test’ till the tenth washing, irrespective of detergent use. It is only after multiple washings that the efficacy of Benzidine in detecting bloodstains could be questioned. In ‘A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology’ by Modi, 28th Edition it has been stated that negative results in a screening test are reliable and negative areas on any article need not be examined further to avoid wastage of time.
Benzidine test creates the doubt in the version of the mother regarding seeing of blood in the clothes
13. When the version of the informant, PW2 and the victim, PW3, who state about presence of bloodstains on the clothes of the victim is considered along with the preliminary medical examination of the victim conducted within twelve hours of the incident and the final report of the Medical Officer6, the presence of any injury on or near the private parts of the victim is not found. The MO was clear in her statement that she could not find injury, whatsoever, on the body of the victim when she was examined within twelve hours of the alleged incident. Absence of any blood on the clothes of the victim as well as on the undergarment of the appellant after the garments were subjected to the ‘Benzidine test’ as per the FSL report is a relevant factor, which cannot be ignored. Thus, when the oral statements of PW2 and PW3 are considered along with the Final Medical Report and the report of the FSL, a grave doubt is created about the version of PW2 and PW3 as regards injury on the body of the victim and bloodstains on the clothes of the victim. The prosecution evidence neither indicates any injury to the private parts of the victim nor trace of any blood on her clothes.
15. Considering the aforesaid evidence that was brought on record, the trial Court found that in view of various material discrepancies, the depositions of PW1 to PW3 did not inspire confidence. Various other contradictions were also noted on the basis of which the learned Judge of the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant. He was, therefore, acquitted. The High Court, however, was of the view that the contradiction with regard to the place of occurrence was not very material. It proceeded to accept the evidence led by the prosecution but without referring either to the Final Medical Report or the report of the FSL. In our view, the entire prosecution evidence would have to be taken into consideration before arriving at any conclusion. When the deposition of prosecution witnesses is considered along with the Final Medical Report as well as the report of the FSL, a serious doubt is created as to the version of PW2 and PW3. Since inception, it was the stand of PW2 and PW3 that there were bloodstains on the clothes of the victim and the victim stated that she had experienced pain as a result of the alleged sexual act of the appellant. The medical examination conducted within twelve hours of the alleged occurrence, however, belies the presence of any injury whatsoever on her body. The opinion of the MO at the preliminary examination stands confirmed by the Final Medical Report. In addition, the report of the FSL rules out the presence of blood and semen on the clothes of the victim. Traces of semen on the undergarment of the appellant, by itself, is not found relevant in these circumstances.
Conclusion
Restored the acquittal of Trial court
16. We, therefore, find that the learned Judge of the trial Court had rightly acquitted the appellant of the said accusation. The High Court, in our view, failed to refer to the medical reports as well as the report of the FSL while overturning the acquittal of the appellant. We do not find the material on record sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The material in that regard falls short and it, in fact, creates a serious doubt about the version of the prosecution. We are, therefore, inclined to restore the judgment of the trial Court after setting aside the judgment of the High Court.
17. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the High Court dated 03.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.351 of 2010 is set aside. The appellant is, thus, acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Penal Code. Presently, the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
18. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms.
Resources
Acts and Sections Mentioned
- Section 106 (relating to the absence of an explanation by the husband).
- Section 161 (relating to early version statements of witnesses).
- Section 498A of the IPC.
- Section 307 of the IPC.
- Section 302 of the IPC.
Party: Jupudi Suresh versus The State of Andhra Pradesh - Criminal Appeal No. 4849 of 2025 - 2026 INSC 832 - August 11, 2026 - Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
