A conviction based on circumstantial evidence must establish clear links and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the reliability of dying declarations is paramount.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T., J.

The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction dated 27-8-2018 and the order of sentence dated 31-8-2018 in Sessions Case No.137 of 2014 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court. The appellant is the accused and the respondent is the complainant-State before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the accused had illicit relationship with one Savitha (hereinafter referred to in as 'deceased') for about one and half-a-year prior to her death. The father and the mother of the accused came to know about their relationship and in this regard, in the absence of the accused, on 1-3-2014, they visited the house of the deceased at Vittasandra Village, where the deceased and the accused lived together and they objected her illicit relationship with their son. On the next day, i.e. on 2-3-2014 at 8:00 a.m., when the accused visited the house, the deceased informed the accused about arrival of his parents to the house and objection to their relationship and in this regard, there was scuffle between him and the deceased. In the said scuffle, the accused got enraged and with an intention to eliminate the deceased, took kerosene, poured on her, set her ablaze and ran away from the house. As a result, the deceased suffered severe burn injuries on her person and she was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, by her neighbours, PWs.2 and 3. When the deceased was under treatment on 2-3-2014, she gave her statement-Ex.P7 (dying declaration) before PW9-Mohan Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru, in the presence of PW10-Dr. Priyadarshini N. Based on said statement, the jurisdictional Police registered a case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and on the following day of the incident at 8:00 a.m., the injured succumbed to burn injuries. Hence, the Investigating Officer incorporated Section 302 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested. The Investigating Officer, recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and after conclusion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined twelve witnesses as PW1 to PW12, got marked eleven documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and three material objects were marked as per MO1 to MO3. For the defence, the mother of the accused was examined as DW1.

5. On assessing the entire evidence, the trial Court, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and while convicting the accused, the trial Court mainly relied on the evidence of PW9-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the dying declaration-Ex.P7 in the presence of PW10- Dr. Priyadarshini N., and also medical evidence of PW7- Dr. Pradeep Kumar, who conducted Post-Mortem examination as per Ex.P6 on the dead body of the deceased, and the evidence of PW12-FSL Officer, reached the conclusion that the accused has committed the aforesaid offence.

6. Assailing the findings of the trial Court, Sri Sharath J.M., learned counsel for the appellant/acc