Reliance on dying declaration requires corroboration; mere circumstantial evidence is insufficient for conviction without proof beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. MUDAGAL, J.

Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the accused in S.C.No.5014/2017 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapattana) has preferred this appeal.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

3. The appellant was the sole accused in S.C.No.5014/2017. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

4. The charge against the accused was that he was addicted to alcohol and was quarrelling with his wife/Renuka whenever she asked money. On 19.03.2016 at 3:00 p.m., in his house, he picked up quarrel with the victim and agitated by that, when she poured kerosene on herself saying that she will commit suicide, the accused lit fire and caused burn injuries. She died on 24.03.2016 at 2:00 p.m. in K.R. Hospital, Mysuru, due to burn injuries. Based on alleged dying declaration/Ex.P23 said to be recorded by PW.17/Chandregowda, Head Constable of K.R. Pet Rural Police Station, PW.15/Punith, Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police of K.R. Pet Rural Police Station registered first information report/Ex.P24 initially for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC . On receiving the death intimation, the case was converted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of . On investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

5. The Trial Court, on hearing the parties, framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . As the accused denied the charge, trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P1 to P25 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked. The accused, after his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., did not lead any defence evidence.

6. The Trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted the accused solely based on the dying declaration/Ex.P23 and the evidence of the official witnesses. The accused has challenged the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the above appeal.

7. Heard both side.

Submissions of Sri Harish Kumar H.C., learned Counsel for the appellant:

8(i) There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case was solely based on circumstantial evidence. The motive for the commission of the offence was alcohol addiction of the accused and he quarrelling with his wife/victim whenever she asked money for the family’s maintenance. But the dying declaration/Ex.P23 does not whisper anything about the alleged addiction of the accused. Further, PWs.8, 9 and 12/father, daughter and younger brother of the victim respectively, did not support the prosecution version, both regarding motive as well as the overt acts of the accused.

(ii) The prosecution’s own records show that the accused also had suffered burn injuries in the same incident and he had tried to put off the fire. When the victim was admitted into the hospital, history of accidental burns was given. The dying declaration was recorded after three days of the alleged incident. For those three days, the victim was under treatment. Evidence of PW.16/Dr. Lokesh itself shows that at the time of recording of the dying declaration, he was not present. The Trial Court committed grave error in relying on such dying declaration which was shrouded with suspicion.

(iii) The Trial Court has wro