A dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if found to be true and voluntary, without the need for corroboration.

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated November 18, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sealdah, in Sessions Trial No. 1(12)04/ Sessions Case No. 27(7)04 convicting the accused/appellant under sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused/petitioner to suffer imprisonment for life and with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was to suffer imprisonment for one year. In addition, he was, also, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. In default of payment of such fine, he was to suffer imprisonment for three months for commission of offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

3. Admittedly, the victim was the wife of the accused. The victim was staying at the relevant point of time in her mother's house. The husband arrived at about 3 p.m. on February 24, 2004 in his in-laws place. The wife asked the husband to work for his earnings. He got annoyed. The husband and the wife were quarrelling. The husband poured kerosene on the body of the wife and set her on fire. The occurrence took place in his in laws place at about 4 p.m.

4. Some local people found that smoke was emitting from the room and they removed the tiles of the roof and rescued the victim. The victim was taken to R.G. Kar Medical College Hospital.

5. The attending physician recorded her dying declaration. She narrated the entire incident. She stated that she was tortured since 1 the date of her marriage. She requested her husband to work, which has not accepted by the husband favourably. The husband/appellant poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire.

6. Mr. Subhasish Pachhal, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the dying declaration was recorded in presence of the mother of the victim. Mr. Pachhal, further, submits that the time of recording the dying declaration was not mentioned in the recording of the attending physician. Therefore, he submits that the dying declaration could not be the basis of the conviction. Mr. Pachhal proceeds that as the victim suffered 90% per centum burn injury, it was unlikely for her to make such statement.

7. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry reported in (2010) 1 SCC 199, held that it has been well-established legal position that a dying declaration could be made the sole basis of conviction of an accused provided the dying declarations found to be true and voluntary and was not a result of tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination.

8. In Munnu Raja and another v. the State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1976) 3 SCC 104 it has been held that once the Court has been satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it could base its conviction without any further corroboration.

9. In Ramawati Devi v. the State of Bihar reported in (1983) 1 SCC 211 it has been held that when the Court was satisfied that the dying declaration was true and voluntary it could base the conviction on it, without corroboration.

10. We, therefore, hold that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated inasmuch as the rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the ocurrence, it is not to be rejected. A brief statement is sufficient.

11. Mere presence of the mother at the time of recording the dying declaration does not make it inadmissible when there is no material on record to show that the mother dictated the victim to give the dying declaration. There is no reason to disbelieve the attending physician, who recorded the