IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on dying declarations as admissible and reliable evidence, guided by the principles of voluntariness, trustworthiness, and the need for corroboration in cases of suspicion.

JUDGMENT :

Neeraj P. Dhote, J.

1. This is an Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’ for short] against the Judgment and Order dated 06/11/2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, in Sessions Case No.02/2014 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short] and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.15000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for two years.

2. Prosecution’s case as revealed from the Police Report is as under:

2.1 Two months prior to the incident, the Appellant and his nephew - Dnyaneshwar Ananda Wankhede [acquitted Accused] committed theft in the house of deceased – Sanjay Nivrattirao Shirfule. Both of them confessed the crime before the villagers. At that time, the Appellant threatened deceased - Sanjay to eliminate his family. The report was lodged for the said threat with the Himayatnagar Police Station, in which, the Appellant was arrested. On that count, the Appellant was having grudge against deceased – Sanjay.

2.2 In the intervening night of 4/5.6.2013 when deceased – Sanjay and his wife - Satwashila were sleeping in the courtyard of their residence, the Appellant came inside by climbing the compound wall, poured the Petrol on both of them and set them ablaze and ran away. Deceased - Sanjay tried to catch-hold of the Appellant, however, he managed to flee. On hearing the screams of deceased - Sanjay, his neighbours came to his house and doused the fire on their person. Deceased - Sanjay and his wife deceased - Satwashila suffered burn injuries and were hospitalized. Their statements [Dying Declarations] were recorded in which they narrated the incident. Crime came to be registered against the Appellant and co-accused – Dnyaneshwar [nephew]. During the treatment, both of them succumbed to the injuries. Investigation was done and the Appellant along with said co-accused came to be Charge-sheeted.

3. The learned Trial Court framed the Charge against the Appellant and co-accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. To prove the Charge, Prosecution examined in all twenty (20) witnesses. After the Prosecution closed it’s evidence, the statement of the Appellant and the co-accused came to be recorded under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.PC. They denied the Prosecution’s case. On appreciating of the evidence, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment acquitting the co-accused No.2 – Dnyaneshwar and convicting the Appellant as referred above in Paragraph No.1.

4. Heard Mr. M.M. Parghane, the learned Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. S.D. Ghayal, learned Addl. P.P. for the Respondent – State. Perused the evidence on record.

5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that in the Medico-Legal Case [MLC], it is mentioned that, the incident occurred due to electrocution. Out of enmity the Appellant has been falsely implicated. He submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstances brought on record by the Prosecution do not prove the Charge. He submitted that the co-accused has been acquitted and the Appeal needs to be allowed by setting aside the conviction of the Appellant.

6. It is submitted by the learned Additional P.P. that both the Dying Declarations are consistent, wherein, it is stated that the Appellant poured Petrol and set the husband and wife on fire. He submitted that the death is due to burn injuries and not by electrocution. He submitted that the medical evidence corroborate the Dying Declarations and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant and hence, the Appeal be dismissed.

7. The witnesses examined by the Prosecution can be categorized as follows :

(i) The witnesses who have seen both th