IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that multiple inconsistent dying declarations cannot serve as a reliable basis for conviction in a murder case, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, J. - The present appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the appellant / accused challenging judgment and order of his conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 13/2015 on 18/2/2016 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment.

2. The prosecution's story is that MLC report was received by the Rural Police Station, Nanded at about 1.10 p.m. on 24/10/2014 from Civil Hospital, Nanded about admission of a patient by name Arun Dilip Sonkamble after he had received burn injuries. Thereafter P.W. 8 Shivaji Mahajan Kondewad went to burn ward No. 14 of Civil Hospital, Nanded and recorded statement of injured after obtaining required endorsement from the Medical Officer. While recording statement, the victim had stated that he was proceeding towards his house from residence of his parental aunt (P.W.3) at about 12.30 p.m., on 24/10/2014. When he reached near flag post, Baudh Vihar at that time appellant /accused Balaji alias Balu Whitener met him and demanded money from him, but he did not give amount. At that time accused No. 3 Barki, accused No. 4 Chandi, accused No. 2 Shantabai and accused No. 1 Balu poured kerosene on his person and set him on fire, due to which he sustained burn injuries on his both hands, back and stomach. Thereafter, he himself extinguished fire by lying in culvert and all the accused persons fled away from spot. Thereafter his mother and brother brought him to Hospital. The said statement was treated as F.I.R. on the basis of which Crime No. 343/2014 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sec. 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the statement of victim was recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate. On 29/10/2014, the victim succumbed due to injuries in Hospital. Therefore, the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added to the said crime. After due investigation, the Investigation Officer filed charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 4 and trial was committed to the Court of Sessions, Nanded.

3. The learned trial Court framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Exhibit 31. The plea of accused recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 Ravi Uttam Sonkamble at Exhibit 43, P.W. 2, Sandip Dilip Sonkamble at Exhibit 45, P.W. 3 Nirmala Vijay Dhavale at Exhibit 46, P.W. 4 Syd. Shakil Syd. Musa at Exhibit 47, P.W. 5 Maroti Digambarrao Dake at Exhibit 48, Shivaji Balaji Jogdand at Exhibit 52, P.W.7 Dr. Vilas Shantilal Chvan, Medical Officer at Exhibit 59, P.W.8 Shivaji Mahajan Kondewad at Exhibit 62, P.W. 9 Anusaya Dilip Sonkamble at Exhibit 65, P.W.10 Sachin Eknath Godbole, P.W.11 Kisan Gopinath Rakh, A.P.I. at Exhibit 68, P.W. 12 Maroti Dilip Musale at Exhibit 80, P.W. 13 Motiram Tulsiram Nikam at Exhibit 82.

5. After conclusion of trial, the statement of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence of the appellant / accused is that the informant intended to purchase his house, but he had sold his house to someone else, hence, he has been falsely implicated in the crime. On 18/2/2016, the learned trial Court passed impugned judgment and order holding guilty to the appellant / accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment, however, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were acquitted.

6. Heard Advocate Mr. Sachin Panale, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.J. Salgare, learned APP for the State. Perused the record and proceedings.

7. Advocate Mr. Sachin S. Panale, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, case of the prosecution is based upon Exhibi