IMPORTANT POINT
The dying declaration, when credible and corroborated, can form the basis of conviction, and the maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' does not apply in Indian law.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.12.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korba, District2 Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 114/2018 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.07.2018 at about 4:30-5:30 P.M., the accused/appellant was abusing the deceased- Seema Yadav and she resisted the same and in retaliation to such resistance, the accused/appellant took out the kerosene can from his house and poured it on the deceased- Seema Yadav and set her ablaze. She was severely burnt and the fire was extinguished by the neighbours. The daughter of the deceased- Bharti Yadav (P.W.-14) informed her father- Lakhan Yadav (P.W.-1) about the incident. Lakhan Yadav (P.W.-1) immediately reached the spot and thereafter, the deceased- Seema Yadav was taken to Korba hospital. Subsequently, on reference being made, she was shifted to CIMS, Bilaspur where during her treatment, she died on 12.07.2018.

While she was admitted in hospital at Korba, her dying declaration was recorded by Naib Tehsildar – Gurudatt Panchbhaye (P.W.-6) where she was declared to be in a fit state of mind to make statement. In her statement, the accusation was made against the present appellant. Daughter and husband of the deceased too made the similar statements. The dead body was subjected to postmortem and in the postmortem report, the death was shown to be cardiorespiratory arrest as a result of extensive burn injury [70 to 75%] resulting in septicaemia and its complications. The accused/appellant was arrested and after recording statement of witnesses, the charge-sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The accused/appellant did not accept the allegations and claimed to be tried. In his defence, the appellant examined 3 witnesses as D.W.-1- Smt. Santoshi Das Manikpuri, D.W.-2- Smt. Kumari Naydu & D.W.-3- Smt. Sunita Singh.

4. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence of the witnesses convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of the defence witnesses i.e. D.W.-1- Smt. Santoshi Das Manikpuri, D.W.-2- Smt. Kumari Naydu & D.W.-3- Smt. Sunita Singh would clearly show that the present appellant was actually trying to save the deceased. He would submit that because of some earlier dispute existing between the parties, threat was always extended that the appellant would be inculpated in a false case and she herself poured kerosene on her and set herself ablaze. Therefore, the false allegations are to be separated from truth. The Court though relied on the child witness- Bharti Yadav (P.W.-14) but her statement is contradictory and she was tutored and even she is not the eye-witness to the incident. He further submits that the statements of the neighbours as also the family members would show that they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Consequently, the conviction in this case needs interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned State counsel would submit that unequivocal dying declaration exists and the same was proved by Naib Tehsildar-Gurudatt Panchbhaye (P.W.-6) and state of mind of the deceased has also been proved correct by Dr. R.P.S. Paikra (P.W.-5). He further submits that in the statement of husband of the deceased- Lakhan Yadav (P.W.-1), it is also admitted that the deceased disclosed that she was set on fire by the present appellant which is corroborated by her daughter- Bharti Yadav (P.W.-14) & both the statements of Lakhan Yadav (P.W.-1) and Bharti Yad