How to determine which party lit the deceased in a case involving alleged murder and self-immolation? What is the legal standard for accepting dying declarations as sole basis for conviction without corroboration? What are the conditions under which the High Court may interfere with an order of acquittal in a criminal appeal?

Key Points: - The court discusses three dying declarations (Ex. 14, Ex. 25, and oral) and their reliability for conviction [13000085740008][13000085740019][13000085740021]. - It analyzes whether dying declarations can form the sole basis for conviction without corroboration, outlining tests for conscious and oriented state, absence of tampering, and absence of influence [13000085740015][13000085740034][13000085740035]. - It addresses the propriety of altering charges from 302 to 306 in alternative and its impact on prejudice to the accused, including case law on permissible framing of an alternate charge and its effect on rights to defense [13000085740037][13000085740040][13000085740041]. - It explains the scope of appellate review over acquittals and the four factors to weigh when considering interference in light of Sheo Swarup and subsequent authorities [13000085740006][13000085740007]. - It concludes that the dying declarations were sufficient to convict, and the accused 1 (mother-in-law) was found guilty of murder while others were acquitted or convicted on related offenses 498A [13000085740046][13000085740047]. - It imposes sentence: life imprisonment for accused 1 for Sec. 302 IPC; other accused for 1 month imprisonment and fine; and 498A convictions [13000085740048].

How to determine which party lit the deceased in a case involving alleged murder and self-immolation?

What is the legal standard for accepting dying declarations as sole basis for conviction without corroboration?

What are the conditions under which the High Court may interfere with an order of acquittal in a criminal appeal?