The dying declarations and witness testimonies must be consistent and reliable to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.08.2012 passed in SC No.237/2011 on the file of Fast Track Court at Hunsur, Mysore District.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 29.05.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., when the deceased - Rathnamma @ Shambavi told to the accused to go to the shop and to bring kerosene. Accused picked up quarrel with her and told her to bring kerosene. Then, accused being angered told to the deceased he would pour kerosene on her and the deceased poured the kerosene on herself. Taking the advantage of the situation, the accused, in order to commit the murder of the deceased, lit the fire by opening the matchbox. Due to same, she has sustained burn injuries. The deceased, in order to save herself, came out from the house, went to nearby ditch and tried to extinguish the fire. By seeing the same, the neighbours came to rescue of the victim and extinguished the fire. At the first instance she was admitted to Periyapatna Hospital and thereafter, shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysore for further treatment. She succumbed to the injuries on 01.06.2011 at about 8.50 p.m.

3. The police registered a case against the accused based on the statement of the injured and also called the Tahsildar to record the statement of the injured. Accordingly, the statement was recorded and she informed the Medical Officer that her husband only set fire on her. The Investigating Officer after recovering the matchbox at the instance of accused, filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

4. The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 20 and M.Os.1 to 6. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence and got marked Exs.D.1 to 3. The Court below recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both prosecutor as well as the defence counsel, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal and would contend that the deceased has suffered burn injuries on 29.05.2011 and died on 01.06.2011. In the meanwhile, the statement was recorded and dying declaration was made before Investigating Officer as well as Tahasildar and the same has not been considered by the trial Court. The trial Judge has erroneously come to a conclusion that the deceased had sustained 92% burn injuries, though the deceased had sustained 70% of burn injuries. It is further observed that she was not in a position to give her statement and the said finding is erroneous. The trial Judge also failed to take note of the fact that the person who is on a death bed, would not implicate an innocent person and in her dying declaration, she has clearly implicated the accused that he only set the fire on her. In spite of convincing evidence before the Court, particularly in respect of dying declaration and also the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the Court below has committed an error in acquitting the accused. Hence, the judgment requires interference of this Court.

6. The learned Additional SPP, Sri.I.S.Pramod Chandra, in his arguments, would contend that the Court below erroneously did not consider Exs.P.16 and 18 i.e., dying declaration of the deceased, which has been recorded in the presence of the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.17. The trial Judge has given more importance to the minor discrepancies. It has come to the conclusion that dying declaration - Ex.P.18 is not in handwriting of the Tahasildar. The Tahasildar, who has been examined before the Court, has categorically deposed that the same was written by his staff. The trial Court has given more importance to the colour of the ink, which was found on the document and hence, the same is erroneous. Hence, it is a fit case to reverse the finding of the trial Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel a