Uncorroborated dying declarations cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction; corroborative evidence is essential for safety in criminal convictions.

Judgment :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

1. Assail in the present Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) is to the Judgment dated 20.7.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.83/2016, by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced thereunder to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional Rigorous Imprisonment for One year, for causing death of his wife Afsana Khatoon (deceased), after exonerating him of the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC.

Prosecution’s case, in brief:-

2. The marriage of the appellant and deceased Afsana Khatoon was solemnized on 2.5.2016 and immediately after about 16 days of their marriage, the appellant raised a demand of Rs.10,000/- and one motorcycle from deceased’s father, Mohd. Mehboob (PW-1), who expressed his inability to fulfill the said demand made by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant is said to have started harassing and beating his wife Afsana Khatoon on account of non-fulfilling of his demand of Rs.10,000/- and motorcycle. Subsequently, on 30.6.2016, around 4:00 a.m., in the morning, the appellant is said to have started beating her on account of said demand of dowry and on that count set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body. She was taken to the District Hospital, Baikunthpur. Dr. S.H. Shende, the contract Medical Officer informed Police Station vide Ex. P-16 regarding the admission of Afsana Khatoon in the said District Hospital in burned condition. MLC of Afsana Khatoon was conducted vide Ex. P-18. Vide Ex. P-4, her dying declaration was recorded by Sub Inspector, C.S. Sidar (PW-14). Thereafter, vide Ex. P-9, another dying declaration of Afsana Khatoon was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Rupesh Kumar Singh (PW-9), at 12:33-12:42 pm. Thereafter, she succumbed to the burn injuries at 4:27 p.m., the information of which was sent by the said Medical Officer to the Police Station, Baikunthpur vide Ex. P-17, on the basis of which zero Merg Intimation was recorded vide Ex. P-23 and zero FIR was registered vide Ex. P-24. Inquest report was conducted vide Ex. P-5, pursuant to which post-mortem of deceased Afsana Khatoon was conducted by the Medical Officer, Dr. Yogendra Chouhan (PW-12) who gave his report opining that the cause of her death was shock due to burn injuries (approximately 94-96%). Thereafter, formal Merg Intimation (Ex. P-21) and FIR (Ex. P-22) was registered against the appellant for offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Vide Ex. P-6, burnt clothes of deceased Afsana Khatoon and other articles were seized. Crime Details Form was prepared vide Ex. P-7 and Spot Map was prepared vide Ex. P-14. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Arrest of the appellant was made.

3. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the Trial Court where charges were framed against him principally for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC for treating his wife Afsana Khatoon with cruelty on account of demand of dowry after their marriage which took place on 2.5.2016 and her dowry-death and, in alternative, charge under Section 302 of IPC was also framed against him for committing murder of his wife Afsana Khatoon. Appellant denied all the said charges and entreated for trial.

4. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-15 and exhibited documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-35. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence produced by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, two witnesses have been