The judgment established the legal principles related to dying declarations, burden of proof, and the application of legal provisions in determining guilt and sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

Johnson John, J.

The accused in S.C. No. 810 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., challenging the conviction and the sentence passed against her for the offences punishable under Sections 302 326A and 498A of IPC as per the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2019.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused is the sister of the husband of the deceased Nissamol. The husband of the deceased was suffering from cancer and for availing treatment from RCC, Thiruvananthapuram, the deceased and her husband reached the family house of the husband of the deceased in Nellikuzhi Grama Panchayat on 30.09.2016 and at that time, the accused was also residing there. Because of previous enmity and suspicion that the deceased and her husband came to the family house to continue their residence there and with the intention to commit murder, the accused poured formic acid from a plastic bucket through the head of the deceased at about 6.15 a.m. on 01.10.2016 while the deceased was sitting in the front verandah of the family house and the deceased sustained severe burn injuries on her head and various parts of the body and she succumbed to her injuries on 05.12.2016 while undergoing treatment in Jubilee Mission Medical College Hospital, Thrissur and the accused is thereby, alleged to have committed the offences as aforesaid.

3. On the basis of Exhibit P1, First Information Statement of PW2 recorded by PW14, ASI of Kothamangalam Police Station, Exhibit P16 FIR was registered by PW16, Sub Inspector of Kothamangalam Police Station, on 03.10.2016. Thereafter, PW17, Circle Inspector of Kothamangalam Police Station, conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I Kothamangalam and after committal, when the accused was produced before the trial court, originally charge was framed for the offences under Sections 498A, 326A and 304 of IPC and during the course of trial, the charge under Section 304 IPC was altered to Section 302 IPC on 17.07.2019.

4. From the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 18 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P21 and MOs 1 and 2 series were marked to prove the charge against the accused. Since it is found that the accused is not entitled for an acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C., she was called upon to enter on her defence. From the side of the accused, DW1 was examined and Exhibit D1 was marked.

5. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2019, convicted the accused and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under Section 326A IPC; and simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months for the offence under Section 498A of IPC.

6. Heard Smt. Manju Antoney, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor Smt. S. Ambika Devi, and perused the records.

7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the accused is legally sustainable.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there has been a time gap of about 2 months between the alleged date of incident and the date of death of the deceased and that the evidence of PW9 would show that the death was due to 50% massive burns and the consequent septicemia, and that to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that sep