The main legal point established is that the reliability of a dying declaration is crucial, and if there are serious infirmities, it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on it. The principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused was also emphasized.

B.A. PATIL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in S.C.No.82/2013 dated : 18.06.2014, where under the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short called IPC)and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and has to further undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Assailing the same, the accused/appellant is before this Court.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel Sri Aruna Shyam. M, for the appellant and Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri Vijaykumar Majage.

3. The gist of the complaint registered on the basis of the statement given by the deceased are that she is resident of Vedalaveni Village, Gowribidanur Taluk and about 10 years back she got married with the accused and they have begotten a female child. It is further alleged that her husband by consuming alcohol used to make galata, she tolerated under the impression that it might cool and subsequently her life may get settled. She also used to inform the said fact to her parents and they also advised the accused. It is further stated in the complaint that on 10.07.2012 at about 7.00 p.m., the accused demanded an amount of Rs.500/- out of Rs.5,000/- received from Stree Shakthi Sanga and when the deceased told that since morning he has been consuming alcohol and it is more than sufficient. Being enraged by the said words, immediately he took out kerosene and by pouring the same, he set her ablaze with an intention to kill her and as a result of the same, she sustained the burn injuries to both hands, legs, chest, near the neck and back and she made hue and cry. Listening to her screams, the neighbours by name Alumelamma and Gangamma came and extinguished the fire and by calling 108 Ambulance they sent the deceased to the Gowribidanur Government Hospital and an intimation was given to the police and police recorded the statement as per Ex.P11 and on the basis of the same, a case was registered in Crime No.132/2012. Thereafter, investigation was conducted and charge sheet has been filed against the accused.

4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and got marked 17 documents and also MOs 1 and 2. Thereafter, after closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the said questions and he has not led in any evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court below having come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused, convicted the accused. Assailing the same, the accused is before this Court.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that the material witnesses examined before the court below have not supported the case of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, the court below ought not to have relied upon the evidence of PW9 and PW11 and also ought not to have relied upon Ex.P11 and P8-the dying declaration said to have been given by the deceased. He further submitted that Ex.P8-the dying declaration said to have been given by the deceased is having inherent defects and improbabilities, which could not persuade the Court to consider the same as dying declaration and even the truthful and genuineness of the witnesses has not been proved by the prosecution. He further submitted that Ex.P11 has been recorded by PW11, which is in detail and in the form of narration. Under such circumstances, it cannot be considered as d