The admissibility and evidentiary value of Dying Declarations, as governed by Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and the principles established in relevant case law, were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Present appellant is the original accused No.1, who has been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed by Judgment and order dated 22.01.2016 in Sessions Case No.46/2014. Appellant/accused has been held guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Before we proceed, we would like to place some admitted facts on record in order to avoid repetition. Deceased Jayshree was the wife of present appellant. They got married about 11 years prior to First Information Report dated 07.05.2014. They have one daughter and two sons. They used to reside at Bhim Nagar in Majalgaon. Parents of deceased Jayshree are residents of village Gangamasla, Tq. Majalgaon. It is further an admitted fact that deceased Jayshree had lodged First Information Report against the accused and his relatives about three years prior to the First Information Report and the case was pending for a considerable period. It was then withdrawn/settled and deceased Jayshree started cohabiting with accused/appellant with their children.

3. It is the prosecution story that Jayshree had sustained burn injuries on 06.05.2014 around 8.00 p.m. and she was taken to Majalgaon hospital and then admitted to Civil Hospital, Ambajogai. Her first Dying Declaration Exh.43 was recorded between 1.30 a.m. to 2.00 a.m. on 07.05.2014 by the police on duty at Police Chowky in Civil Hospital, Ambajogai. Thereafter, on the same day between 4.15 a.m. to 4.40 a.m. second Dying Declaration Exh.63 came to be recorded by Executive Magistrate at Civil Hospital, Ambajogai. Her third Dying Declaration Exh.73 has been recorded by Investigating Officer from Majalgaon city Police Station between 6.00 to 6.30 p.m. on 10.05.2014. The first Dying Declaration Exh.43 has been treated as First Information Report and offence under Section 307 came to be registered against the present appellant, however, when second Dying Declaration Exh.63 showed the involvement of the relatives i.e. mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law, they were added as accused Nos.2 to 4 and investigation was started. The panchnama of the spot was executed and the accused No.1 came to be arrested. It appears that the other accused persons were released after nominal arrest in view of the anticipatory bail they had secured. The seized articles from the spot as well as the clothes of the accused No.1 were sent for chemical analysis, statements of the witnesses came to be recorded and after the completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed. Accused No.1 i.e. present appellant was not released on bail throughout the trial. After considering the evidence on record and hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge held the present appellant guilty, as aforesaid. For the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment of two months. Further, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment of four months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Accused Nos.2 to 4 stood acquitted of all the charges. Hence, the original accused No.1/present appellant had filed the present appeal.

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.J. Salunke for the appellant and learned APP Mrs. V.S. Choudhari for the respondent.

5. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution has relied on three Dying Declarations and one oral Dying Declaration as well as the testimony of the daughter of the deceased and the appellant as eye witness. Learned Advocate for the appellant has taken us through the entire evidence and submit