A dying declaration, while crucial, cannot solely support a conviction for abetment of suicide or cruelty without corroborative evidence and clear proof of intent.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The present three appellants have challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 23.02.2005 by Second Extra Assistant Judge, Veraval in Sessions Case No.25/2002, whereby all three women accused came to be convicted under Sections 498A, 306, 504 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and were ordered to undergo three years simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 114 of IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/- was ordered with default stipulation that in failure to pay the fine amount, further six months simple imprisonment.

1.1 While under Section 306 read with Section 114 IPC, five years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in failure to pay the fine amount further six months simple imprisonment.

1.2 For the offence under Section 504 read with Section 114 IPC, one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in failure to pay fine further six months simple imprisonment was ordered. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of set off granted. 2. The charge against all three accused, as elder sister-in-law (Jethani), sister-in-law (Nanad) and mother-in-law was that all the accused often would verbally abuse deceased Geetaben stating that she was loitering here and there and was not taking care of the children and saying so, they were physically and mentally subjecting her to cruelty, and with the alleged cruelty had abated her suicide, therefore, Geetaben by pouring kerosene on her body ablazed herself and committed suicide.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh D.Nanavaty for the appellants submitted that the conviction is solely based upon dying declaration, which in case of 90% of burns was required corroborative piece of evidence and thereby, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is bad in law and is required to be set aside.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Nanavaty submitted that P.W.3 – Doctor, who performed the P.M. Report has admitted 90% of burn injuries and the condition of victim being critical and that she was administered painkillers as well as injection, thus, Mr. Nanavaty stated that would not be in a position to depose before the Executive Magistrate in a regular course for dying declaration to be considered as genuine and truthful.

3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Nanavaty further submitted that the conduct of the Doctor was also required to be noted since the endorsement made also creates doubts, as such endorsement does not disclose actual condition of the victim during the time when the dying declaration came to be recorded.

3.3 Mr. Nanavaty, learned advocate submitted that if at all dying declaration is also to be considered as true, then also the facts, as recorded of the deceased would not fall under the definition of cruelty to consider as an offence under Section 498A IPC, or to consider it as an abetment to suicide.

3.4 Advocate Mr. Nanavaty submitted that as per the facts, which came on record by way of depositions of the witnesses, the deceased was staying separately along with two children and husband. The younger one was 15 days old and therefore, the mother and sisters-in-law were telling the deceased to take care of the child, would not b