The importance of consistent, coherent, and conscious dying declarations, the need for corroborative evidence, the victim's fit state of mind, and the prompt lodging of the FIR for conviction in cases of homicide.

JUDGMENT

S.G.DIGE, J. - The appellant impugns a judgment and order dtd. 29/12/2014 passed in Sessions Case No.85 of 2013, whereby he is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"). The appellant is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. . Brief facts are as under :

2. The appellant and deceased Chhaya (for short, "Chhaya") was married 9 years prior to the incident. They were residing at Mauje Katgaon, Dist. Latur. On 5/4/2013, at around 5.00 p.m., the appellant had poured kerosene on the person of Chhaya and set her ablaze. The appellant was alleged to have committed the said offence as he was suspecting her character. Chhaya in bid to save her life plunged into gutter in front of her house. On hearing Chhaya's shout, her mother-inlaw Smt. Sitabai (PW-4) and grandmother Smt. Sunanda (DW-1) came to the spot and tried to extinguish the fire, meanwhile villagers gathered at the spot and arranged vehicle and brought Chhaya to Civil Hospital, Latur. Chhaya was admitted in Civil Hospital, Latur. During treatment of Chhaya in Civil Hospital, she has given two dying declarations. Chhaya succumbed to the burn injuries on 12/4/2013. After her demise, crime under sec. 302 of IPC came to be registered against the appellant on the basis of dying declaration of Chhaya. The appellant was arrested on 19/4/2013.

3. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. The case was tried before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. The appellant abjured his guilt and desired to face the trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined twelve witnesses. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of appellant under sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") recorded. It is defence of the appellant that the said incident was happened due to inflammation of the stove and he was not present in the house at the time of incident. The defence has also examined one witness Smt. Sunanda Mahadhu Sarode as (DW-1). Considering the evidence on record and submissions made on behalf of both the parties, the learned Trial Court by Judgment and order convicted the appellant for the offence for which he was tried. Against the said Judgment and Order, this Appeal.

4. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for respondent-State.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant Mr.S.D. Kaldate that the prosecution case is based on the dying declarations but these dying declarations are suspicious. There is delay in lodging the First Information Report after recording the dying declarations. Doctor, who has put endorsement on the dying declarations, was not present while recording the dying declarations. He further submits that it has come on record that the deceased was not in a position to give dying declarations. There is no corroborative evidence in respect of dying declarations. At the time of admission, Chhaya had given history of her burn injuries and stated that it was accidental but said history is suppressed by prosecution. The learned trial Court has erred while considering the evidence on record. Hence requested to allow the appeal.

6. It is the contention of learned A.P.P. Mr.S.P. Deshmukh that two written dying declarations are consistent. These are recorded by the Police Constable and the Executive Magistrate who are independent witnesses. There is no reason to them to depose against the appellant-accused. Both dying declarations are endorsed by the doctor that the deceased was in fit state of mind to give the dying declarations. There was burn injury on the leg of the appellant, which proves that the appellant was present at the time of incident. Considering the evidence on record, learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant. Hence, the judgment