A dying declaration must be credible and corroborated; otherwise, the accused cannot be convicted without evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

M G Uma, J.

The appellant being the accused in S.C.No. 110 of 2009 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2013, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short, 'IPC'), and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, with default sentences.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the accused had married the deceased Gayathri about 2 years earlier to the incident i.e. during 2007. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused being the husband, used to suspect the fidelity of his wife-the deceased-Gayathri, pick up quarrel with her and treated her with cruelty. Not being able to face the cruelty, the deceased poured kerosene and set fire, as a result of which she sustained burn injuries. Initially she was taken to District Hospital, Chikmagalur, later she was shifted to Father Muller's Hospital, Kankanadi and again she was shifted to Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore where she breathed her lost. It is the contention of the prosecution that when the injured was in Father Muller's Hospital, Kankanadi, her statement as per Exhibit P10 was recorded. On the basis of the same, the FIR came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. The investigation was undertaken. But however, on 04.04.2009, the victim died due to complications of burn injuries sustained. The inquest panchanama and other formalities were completed and after investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

3. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The accused had appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and he claims to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 20, got marked Exhibits P1 to 14 and identified MO's.1 to 3 in support of its contention. The accused had denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.PC, but he has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly convicted the accused for the offences as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this court.

4. Heard Sri.Leeladhar H.P., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under:

"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

6. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused being the husband, used to suspect the fidelity of his wife-the deceased and used to ill-treat her. As a result, on 27.03.2009, the deceased not being able to tolerate the said cruelty, poured kerosene on her and s