JUDGMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.:---Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20-8-1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 482 of 1994 convicting the appellant-accused under sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life this appeal is filed on the grounds as mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused.

2. The prosecution story stated in brief is that:

That the deceased was wife of the accused. The accused is a lepor and suffering from leprosy. He was suspecting the character of his wife. The suspicion was the root cause for the accused to ill treat his wife. The accused was addicted to consumption of liquor.

3. On the fateful day there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased. At that time accused had consumed liquor. He poured kerosene on the person of deceased and set her on fire due to which she sustained burn injuries and was admitted in the hospital for treatment. Her dying declaration was recorded by Special Executive Magistrate and subsequently she succumbed to injuries. According to statement recorded the case was registered against the appellant-accused and he was arrested for offence under sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code. He was duly charge-sheeted and tried in Sessions Court at Pune.

4. The prosecution has proved the dying declaration made by the deceased and has examined for the purpose of proving prosecution case three witnesses. With the assistance of learned Counsel for accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State we have scrutinized the record, have reappreciated entire evidence on record. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the dying declaration cannot be accepted as validly proved as there is no corroboration to this dying declaration and therefore it is liable to be rejected. The dying declaration should according to learned Counsel have proper corroboration, and this declaration not having been recorded in the manner prescribed by law was liable to be rejected. He pointed out to us discrepancies in recording of the dying declaration and we will refer to the same while discussing the evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no error in the order of conviction and the dying declaration satisfies requirements of law and is duly proved and an uncorroborated dying declaration can form part of conviction.

5. P.W. 1 is Dr. Chandekar who conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased Anju Puran Chavan wife of accused. He has deposed that she had sustained 89% burn injuries as noted in column 17 of post-mortem report. He states that all the injuries were ante mortem and death was caused due to shock and toxaemia due to burns. He proves the post-mortem report. There is no cross-examination of the Doctor. The testimony of Doctor therefore proves that the death of victim was homicidal in nature.

6. P.W. 2 is D.K. Lolage who was working as Head Constable at Dehu Road Police Station in October, 1994. He states that on 11-10-1994 investigation was entrusted to him of case of burning. He states that when he went to Sassoon Hospital the Bund Garden Police Station had recorded dying declaration of victim Anju. He took in his possession and the same is produced by him in the Court. He says that then he went to the spot and drew spot panchanama and recorded the statement of witnesses. He therefore filed a complaint and proved it in Court as Exhibit 16. It was on the basis of this complaint that investigation was carried out, accused was arrested and prosecuted for offence under section 302 I.P.C.

7. P.W. 3 is one Pandit More who was in the year 1995 working as Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pune. He received requisition from the police and went to Sassoon Hospital, searched the Doctor. The Doctor said that the patient was conscious and can given statement. He gave such declaration in writing and thereaf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document