The duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the requirement for a credible and corroborated dying declaration.

JUDGMENT :

P.N. DESHMUKH, J.

1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 18/7/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.112/2011 whereby appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

2. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that deceased Neha, who was married to appellant in the year 2009, was cohabitating at the appellant's house at village Kawatha Kadu. However, while residing with appellant, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by him on consuming liquor. Appellant is also stated to have demanded money from deceased Neha. In the background of above facts, it is the case of prosecution that on 8/5/2010 deceased Neha sustained hundred per cent burn injuries for which she was brought to Irwin Hospital at Amravati. P.W.5 Mahadeo Todsam, PSI on getting information of admission of Neha in Hospital, deputed P.W.3 Naresh Mohokar, Head Constable to arrange for recording her statement and to visit the spot. Accordingly, P.W.3 Naresh Mohokar got statement of Neha recorded through P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade, Naib Tahsildar and on the strength of the said statement, registered first information report vide Crime No.74/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code vide Exh. 22, which was investigated by P.W.5 Mahadeo Todsam, PSI, during the course of which he drew spot panchanama (Exh. 27) and seized incriminating articles from spot vide seizure panchanama (Exh. 30). Neha died while under medical treatment at Hospital on 9/5/2010 at about 2.55 a.m. On her death, offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code came to be added in the present crime, which was further investigated. On recording statement of witnesses, appellant was arrested and his clothes and other articles came to be seized. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandur Railway, District Amravati. In due course of time, case came to be committed for trial to the Court of Sessions.

3. Charge was framed against appellant vide Exh. 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. To establish the charge, prosecution has examined five witnesses and commenced evidence by examining P.W.1 Manoj Bhende, uncle of deceased Neha, who is relied by prosecution on oral dying declaration by deceased Neha, P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade, Naib Tahsildar, who recorded dying declaration of Neha (Exh. 16), P.W.3 Naresh Mohokar, ASI, who registered first information report, P.W.4 Vishnu Gondale, who has proved seizure panchanamas (Exhs.25 and 26) and concluded evidence on examining P.W.5 Mahadeo Todsam, Investigating Officer.

4. The appellant has neither examined himself nor any defence witness to establish his innocence. Learned trial Court having considered evidence on record, convicted appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

5. Shri Daga, learned Counsel for appellant, at the outset has referred to post mortem note, which is an admitted document (Exh. 18) and contended that according to this document, probable cause of death of Neha is due to hundred per cent burns and by referring to column 16 of the said document, it is further contended that both upper limbs and lower limbs of deceased Neha were fully burnt and thus, it is impossible for P.W.2 Prakash Ghormade, Naib Tahsilar to obtain left hand thumb impression of deceased Neha on dying declaration (Exh. 16). By referring to this document, it i