Important Point
The dying declaration to the Judicial Magistrate is reliable and the other dying declarations also support the fact that appellant was the culprit who burnt the young lady to death.

Judgment

Thomas, J.-A young lady aged about 25, Kadari Lingamma, was burnt to death. The crime has been attributed to her paramour Vajrala Paripur­nachary (appellant herein) who was indicted for her murder. He was acquitted by the Sessions Court but was convicted by the High Court on an appeal under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. So he has filed this appeal as of right.

2. Kadari Lingamma was given in marriage first to one Chella Venkanna, but that marriage was short-lived. Later she was married to one Bari Venkanna which also ended in failure. Thereafter she stayed with her parents and during that time she developed intimacy with the appellant who was a married man having children. Appellant used to make noctur­nal visits to her house and was maintaining illicit relationship with the deceased.

3. According to the prosecution, on the night of 28.2.1991 appellant went to the house where deceased was staying. Her father was not in the house then as he had gone out to watch his cattle. The presence of a teenaged brother of the deceased (P.W. 2 Ramamurthy) did not deter the appellant and the deceased to resort to libidinous cooing and they indulged in drinking and liaison. In the night a visitor knocked at the door of the house when appellant opened the door, the visitor said that he came to see deceased’s father. The said visitor, however, left the house on being told that her father had gone out of the house. The appellant suspected whether the visitor was actually somebody who came to see her in the night. He questioned her on it but she denied having any acquaintance with him. Appellant seemed unsatisfied with her explanation. In the night he doused kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Hearing her loud cries her brother (P.W. 2 Ramamurthy) woke up and saw his sister writhing in flames. She told him that it was the appellant who set fire to her. The noise created by her brought some neighbours to the house who made all efforts to extinguish the fire and save her. Then P.W. 2 Ramamurthy went to the cattle field and reported the matter to his father. He rushed to the house and heard the story from his daughter. They all shifted her to the hospital. On the way they visited the local police station with whom she lodged her complaint Ext. P-13. At the hospital P.W. 12 Judicial Magistrate re­corded the dying declaration of the deceased. She succumbed to her burn injuries on the next day.

4. The trial judge was not inclined to act on the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate mainly on the ground she stated that the incident had taken place outside the house, and also because of other discrepancies. Ultimately the trial Court acquitted the appellant.

5. But the Division Bench of the High Court which heard State’s appeal through the Public Prosecutor took the view that the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate should not have been overlooked on the strength of a mere discrepancy regarding the exact place of mur­der. The Division Bench took into account other evidence and reached the unavoidable conclusion that it was the appellant who set her ablaze.

5. There can be no two opinions that Lingamma died of burn injuries which she would have sustained on the night of 28.2.1991. No sugges­tion has been put forward from any quarters that the deceased did it by herself for committing suicide. From all appearances and circum­stances we have no doubt that Lingamma’s death is a case of homicide. The limited question before the court in such a situation is, who the assailant was.

6. While considering that aspect, which is the decisive issue before us, we have to take note of certain broad features. The first person to whom she talked about the incident was her own brother (P.W. 2 Ramamurthy). She told him that it was the appellant who did it. To her father and sister (P.W. 3) also she said the same version. At the police station she said the same thing. Her statement was recorded by the police and g