JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated December 1, 2020 and the order of sentence dated December 2, 2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bishnupur in Sessions Trial No. 4 (11) 2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 16 (12) 2012.

2. By the impugned judgment of conviction, the appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence, the appellant was awarded a sentence to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that, the prosecution was unable to prove the charges as against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that, three persons were charged at the trial. They were charged under Sections 498A/326/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Two of the accused were acquitted by the learned trial Judge. The appellant was found guilty only under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Moreover, learned Amicus Curiae submits that, the incident of burn occurred on June 16, 2010. The First Information Report was lodged on June 20, 2010. The victim succumbed to her burn injuries on June 25, 2010.

5. Prior to the victim succumbing to her burn injuries, she recorded three dying declarations. Learned Amicus Curiae refers to the dying declaration of the victim which was marked as Exhibit-6 at the trial. He submits that, prior thereto there were two other dying declarations. He refers to the testimony of the doctor before whom the two previous dying declarations were made by the victim. He also refers to the contents of Exhibit-6. He submits that, two doctors and a nurse were present at the time of recording Exhibit-6. One of the doctors and the nurse were not examined by the prosecution at the trial.

6. Relying upon Amol Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 468 learned Amicus Curiae submits that in the facts of the present case, the first two dying declarations of the victim does not speak of any involvement of the appellant. The appellant was introduced only in Exhibit-6, which is the last one. There are apparent contradictions in the three dying declarations of the victim. Consequently, benefit of doubt, at the basic minimum, should be afforded to the appellant.

7. Learned Amicus curiae submits that, the contents of Exhibit-6 were not corroborated by the material evidences tendered at the trial. Exhibit-6 speaks of kerosene oil being poured over the victim. No kerosene jar was seized by the police. He refers to the deposition of the Investigating Officer. He submits that investigations were done in a perfunctory manner.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that, the dying declaration being Exhibit-6 was not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses. He submits that some of the prosecution witnesses including the victim turned hostile.

9. In such circumstances, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the appellant should be acquitted of the charges.

10. Learned advocate for the State refers to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He submits that, the victim recorded her dying declaration being Exhibit-6. According to him, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of Exhibit-6. In Exhibit-6, the appellant was implicated. Consequently, according to him, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence should be upheld.

11. Police received a written complaint from the father of the victim being PW-4 on June 20, 2010. Such written complaint, which was tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit-1, PW-4 stated that, the victim was married to the appellant on th Falgun, 2002 as per Hindu rituals. At the time of the marriage, the groom side demanded Rs.80,000/- in cash, gold ornaments and other essentials as dowry. Out of such demand, he gave