The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations and the requirement of an endorsement about reading over the declaration and the declarant admitting its correctness for the declaration to be accepted.

1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 14th September, 2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Amravati, in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 2011, by which the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, the present appeal was filed by the appellant.

Facts :

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that deceased Manisha alias Manorama was married to appellant-accused – Ganpat Lad nine years before the incident. Two daughters and a son were born out of the wedlock. The appellant was ill-treating his wife since after marriage by assaulting her under the influence of liquor and she used to go to the house of her brother – Anil Pohane and used to inform him about the drinking habit of appellant Ganpat and assaulting her on trifle matters. Appellant was given understanding, but to no use.

3. On 21st February, 2011, at about 10.30 to 10.45 a.m., Annapurna Ramesh Bawane, neighbour of the deceased, informed deceased's brother – Anil, that Manisha received burns and she was taken to Govt. Hospital at Warud. Therefore, Anil, accompanied by his parents, uncle Tukaram Pohane and the neighbourer Narayan Waghamare went to Govt. Hospital at Warud by auto rickshaw. They met Manisha who was in a burnt condition. Statement of Manisha was already recorded. Anil asked her as to what happened and she narrated the incident, saying that at about 10.00 a.m., her husband Ganpat went out, returned after ten to fifteen minutes in a drunken state, started abusing her and thereafter he took kerosene, poured it on her person and set her on fire. Her father Named as well as Sushila, her mother, so also Tukaram and Narayan, the neighbours, also asked the same question and she answered accordingly. She was brought to the hospital by the neighbours Annapurna Bawne, Lata Dhanraj Kadu and Kamla Pandurang Shende. On the basis of her Dying Declaration recorded immediately after the incident, an FIR was registered. Thereafter, she was shifted to Irwin Hospital, Amravati where another Dying Declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. She stated that it was the appellant Ganpat who poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. She died in the hospital and then an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, was registered. Investigation was carried out. Charge-sheet was filed. Case was committed to the Sessions Court.

4. Appellant denied the charge. Trial was held. Evidence was heard by the learned Trial Judge. After hearing arguments, Trial Judge convicted the appellant. Hence this appeal.

5. Mr. Rahul Dhande, learned counsel for the appellant [appointed] made the following submissions:-

[a] The learned Trial Judge has committed a serious error in convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for which he was charged.

[b] The case of the prosecution is false and the prosecution failed to prove its case that too beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the benefit of doubt should have been given by the Trial Judge to the accused and not to the prosecution.

[c] Referring to the Dying Declaration [Exh.31], he contended that there is interpolation above the stamp “Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Warud” as to the time of completion of Dying Declaration and that raises a serious doubt about the sanctity of the document of Dying Declaration, particularly because the same was recorded by the Police Officer and no explanation is forthcoming as to why the Executive Magistrate was not called for first Dying Declaration.

[d] Perusal of the said Dying Declaration [Exh.31] shows a thumb impression, when, as a matter of fact, the Post-mortem Report shows that burn injuries suffered by deceased were on hands to the extent of hundred per cent as understood in the medical science and, therefore, that lends support to his argument about his s