The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in relying on dying declarations, the importance of corroborative evidence, and the entitlement of the accused to the benefit of doubt in cases where the evidence raises doubts about the reliability of dying declarations.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in S.C.No.70 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. By way of the judgment, dated 03.06.2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A1, A2 and A4-appellants herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. This appeal calls in question the said judgment, dated 03.06.2014.

3. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution, as per the charge sheet, is as follows:

The marriage between the deceased-Smt.Lalitha and the accused took place nine years prior to the date of offence and they begot a daughter and a son out of their wedlock. At the time of marriage, P.Ws.1 and 2 gave cash of Rs.60,000/-and 3 Tulas of Gold ornaments to A1 towards dowry. A1 is a man of suspicious nature and he used to torture the deceased to bring money from her parents. A1 sent the deceased and two children to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 about eight months prior to the death when his demands remained unfulfilled. A panchayat was held on 30.06.2011 at the house of P.W.5 (L.W.10) to which L.Ws.11 to 16 also attended. During the said panchayat, A1 gave a written undertaking that he would look after the wife and children properly and P.Ws.1 and 2 also agreed to get the land transferred, which was in the name of the deceased, in favour of the children of the deceased and the accused. A1 took his wife and children to his house and there was no change in his attitude and he continued harassment and sold away gold and also appropriated the dowry amount given at the time of marriage.

On 03.01.2012, at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased came back from fields to the house and A1, who was also in the house, asked her for towel and when the deceased told him to do for himself, the accused got offended and set her ablaze by pouring kerosene and A2 to A4 also instigated him and they also caught hold of the hands of the deceased and she raised cries and L.W.3 (son of the deceased) also suffered burns. On hearing, the neighbours gathered and put off the flames and the deceased suffered 72% burns at that time. On receipt of information, at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.1 reached the Government hospital, Vizianagaram immediately. On receipt of medical intimation-Ex.P20, on 03.01.2012, the Head Constable (P.W.7) at the District Head Quarters hospital Outpost Police Station recorded the statement of the deceased-Ex.P21 and P.W.14 (L.W.34), on that basis, registered Cr.No.1 of 2012 under Sections 307 and 498-A r/w 34 IPC on the file of the Gurazala Police Station and, on 03.01.2012, the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram-P.W.13 (L.W13) recorded Ex.P19-Dying Declaration in the District Head Quarters hospital in the presence of P.W.16 (L.W.29), The then Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W.14 (L.W.34) also examined the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and recorded the statement of the deceased on 03.01.2012 and it is also a Dying Declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thereafter, the Section of law was altered on 11.02.2012 as Section 302 IPC. After expiry of the deceased, P.W.18 (L.W.35) took up investigation and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of L.Ws.24 to 26. Thereafter, the Doctor conducted postmortem vide Ex.P17-report which opined that the death was due to burns. A1 was arrested on 08.01.2012 and A2 to A4 were arrested on 18.01.2012 and, after investigation, police filed charge sheet and, eventually, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found A1, A2 and A4, who are the appellants herein, guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.

4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P1 to P28 apart from M.Os.1 to 5. On behalf o