-
by sayum
18 February 2026 6:55 AM
“A dying declaration unsupported by independent corroboration, and not even put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, cannot be the basis of conviction — more so when surrounded by suspicious circumstances and legal infirmities,” observed the Andhra Pradesh High Court while acquitting Guruvendapalli Nagaraju in a sensational case of alleged uxoricide.
Division Bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Subba Reddy Satti set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed by the Sessions Court at Vizianagaram in Sessions Case No.68 of 2016, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove motive, break the accused’s presumption of innocence, or establish the chain of circumstances required in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence.
The case involved the alleged murder of Nagaraju’s wife, Radha, who died under suspicious circumstances in their matrimonial home. He was accused of strangulating her with a saree, shifting the body to another district, and attempting to destroy evidence.
“False Explanation Cannot Fill Gaps in Prosecution’s Case — Burden Under Section 106 Arises Only When Prosecution Discharges Its Own”
The Court’s central finding was that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, despite arguing that the burden shifted to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Bench clarified:
“Failure of the accused to explain the circumstances under Section 106 is merely an additional circumstance; it is not a substitute for the prosecution's duty to establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu, the High Court emphasized that:
“Although the husband may be expected to explain unnatural death in the matrimonial home, that presumption alone is not conclusive unless backed by direct or compelling circumstantial proof.”
“Inadmissible Dying Declaration, Not Put to the Accused, Violates Right to Fair Trial”
The prosecution heavily relied on Ex.P2, a note allegedly written by the deceased in a notebook, to establish harassment and motive. However, the High Court found glaring discrepancies:
“Ex.P2 bears an inconsistent surname, no date, and contains content relating to a previous case between the parties, which was neither placed before the Court nor explained. Most importantly, it was never put to the accused in his Section 313 CrPC examination.”
The Court found this omission fatal, reiterating the principle from Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan:
“The circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used against him and have to be excluded from consideration.”
It further held, relying on Kalicharan v. State of U.P., that:
“Questioning under Section 313 is not a mere formality. Unless the accused is confronted with incriminating material, his right to defend himself is denied, and the conviction becomes legally untenable.”
“Handwriting Expert’s Opinion is Not Conclusive — Courts Must Seek Independent Corroboration”
Rejecting the trial court’s reliance on Ex.P2, the High Court cited the Supreme Court’s classic caution in Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab:
“It is extremely hazardous to condemn an accused merely on the strength of the opinion of a handwriting expert. Such evidence, by itself, is weak and insufficient to convict unless supported by direct or circumstantial evidence.”
The Bench noted that no other circumstance, either by way of independent witnesses or medical evidence, validated the contents of Ex.P2. The medical report showed no signs of violence, the hyoid bone was intact, and the body was already highly decomposed, casting doubt on the allegation of strangulation.
“Motive Not Proved — When Case Rests Solely on Circumstantial Evidence, Absence of Motive Weakens Prosecution”
The High Court further held that motive — a vital link in circumstantial cases — was absent and unproven. The prosecution had alleged that the appellant wished to marry another woman, but offered no witness or document to support the claim. The deceased’s brother and mother (PWs 1 and 5), though examined, gave uncorroborated testimonies which the Court found unreliable.
Citing the apex court's ruling in Pannayar v. State of T.N., the High Court observed:
“In cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes heightened importance. The absence of motive, especially where no direct evidence exists, weighs heavily in favour of the accused.”
“Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Used to Supply Missing Links — Statements Made by Accused Are Not Substantive Evidence”
The Bench cautioned against treating the accused’s own statements under Section 313 CrPC as if they were admissions or evidence of guilt:
“The answers given by the accused under Section 313 cannot form the basis of conviction — they are not given on oath, and the prosecution has no opportunity to cross-examine.”
It noted that the trial court had improperly relied on the accused’s version about bleeding and hospitalisation as if it were part of the prosecution’s evidence.
“Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Take the Place of Proof”: High Court Reverses Life Sentence
The Court concluded that the prosecution’s entire case was marred by:
Holding that the trial court had misapplied the legal standards, the High Court categorically ruled:
“Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. Conviction cannot rest on possibilities or assumptions, especially when the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
“Two Views Possible — One Must Go in Favour of the Accused”: High Court Applies Benefit of Doubt Principle
Quoting the Supreme Court in Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, the Bench reiterated the criminal law standard:
“When two views are possible — one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence — the view favourable to the accused must be adopted.”
Given the lack of motive, unreliable witnesses, and unexplained inconsistencies in the dying declaration, the Court found that the benefit of doubt clearly applied.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed that any fine paid by the accused be refunded, and since he was already on bail, he was ordered to report to the prison authorities to complete formalities as per Batchu Ranga Rao & Others v. State of A.P..
Date of Judgment: 03 November 2025
