Important Point—Court can base conviction on sole dying declaration without seeking for corroboration from other evidence.

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. This appeal is filed by appellant/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.06.2010 in S.C.No.256 of 2009 passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet whereby the learned Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer SI for three months.

2. The prosecution case is thus:

(a) The deceased—Santhoshi was a resident of Palata village of Toopran Mandal, Medak District; she married one Yadagiri of Imampur village; they lived together for one year and thereafter Yadagiri discarded her and since then the deceased was living at Nacharam Gutta and eking out her livelihood by doing coolie work. The accused—Md. Farooq was a resident of Nacharam village and living by selling meat. While so, he developed illicit intimacy with deceased and enjoyed her sexually at Nacharam Gutta for three months and thereafter he shifted deceased to Begumpet and kept her in a rented house of PW1; the accused used to visit the house of deceased at Begumpet frequently for sexual intercourse. While so, parents of the accused decided to perform his marriage and fixed the match; knowing about the said fact deceased used to quarrel with accused. On that accused thought deceased would not allow him to marry another girl and decided to eliminate her.

(b) On 15.03.2009, as usual, he visited the house of deceased and spent that night. On 16.03.2009 at about 7 AM, he poured kerosene on her and set fire and threw away the empty plastic kerosene tin into the bushes behind the bathroom and fled away. On hearing her cries, the neighbours came there and put off the flames and shifted her to Gajwel Government Hospital and thereafter to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment where she succumbed to injuries on 18.03.2009 at about 10.40 PM while undergoing treatment. PW10—X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad recorded her dying declaration in Gandhi Hospital.

(c) On 19.03.2009 at about 6.30 PM, PW4 gave Ex.P4—complaint to PW11—SI of Police. Basing on the said complaint PW11 registered a case in Cr.No.27 of 2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and took up investigation. He examined PW4 and recorded his statement; directed PW13—Head Constable to hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the hospital; examined PWs.1, 3 and P. Laxmi—mother of deceased (LW5) and recorded their statements; visited the scene of offence in the presence of PWs.6 and 7; prepared Ex.P16—scene of observation report and Ex.P17—rough sketch and sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. PW12—Dr. V. Sandhya Manohar who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued Ex.P18—post-mortem report and opined that cause of death was due to burns.

(d) On 31.03.2009, on receipt of Ex.P13—dying declaration, PW-11 altered the section of law from 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 302 IPC and issued altered memo to Magistrate Court and handed over the case to PW14—Inspector of Police for further investigation. After taking charge, PW14 arrested the accused on 09.04.2009 at 6 PM at Nacharam village and basing on the confessional statement made by accused, recovered MO1—empty kerosene tin and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet under Section 302 IPC.

(e) On appearance of the accused, the trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against him and conducted trial.

(f) During trial, PWs.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P22 were marked and MO1—empty kerosene plastic tin was exhibited on behalf of prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of defence.

(g) After completion of trial, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating circumstances revealed in the prosecution evidence were put to him and the accused denied.

3. The trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence observed that version of de