Dying declarations are admissible and have sufficient probative value to support a conviction, even in the absence of corroborating evidence.

1. - The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 198/2004 decided on 11.8.2005 by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jodhpur, is the appellant before us. He has been charged with offence punishable under Sec lion 302, Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife Smt. Saraswati, who has been found guilty under this count and convicted and sentenced to undergo life term imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and it was further ordered that in event of default in payment of fine, he will further undergo for one year simple imprisonment. Therefore, this appeal has been preferred, which was admitted by this Court vide order dated 16.1.2006 and record of the trial Court was called for.

2. The prosecution case was that on 21.12.2003 at about 2.30-3.00 P.M., the appellant/accused poured kerosene on his wife Smt. Saraswati and set her on fire by lightening a match stick. The injured was taken to Suncity Hospital, Jodhpur, where from, after giving first-aid, she was referred to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. While on treatment, she succumbed to the injuries on 8.1.2004 at about 7.20 P.M. It was also alleged that the appellant had been in habit of causing mental and physical cruelty after taking liquor, even prior to the occurrence towards his wife i.e. deceased Smt. Saraswati. It was on its basis that appellant/accused has been charged as aforesaid.

3. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs Nos. 1 to 21, documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-24. Though there were no eye-witnesses to the occurrence but there were six dying declarations, as spoken to by PW-3 Dr. Harbans Singh, PW-5 Ragini, PW-9 Sri Am it Sahlot, Judicial Magistrate, PW-10 Kanhiya Lal, PW-17 Kamal Singh and PW-20 Gani Mohd. On the basis of circumstantial evidence and the oral testimony of the witnesses, the learned trial Court found the appellant-accused guilty, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for State and perused the impugned judgment and trial Court record.

5. It is submitted by learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of appellant-accused that dying declarations relied upon by the learned trial Court are not worthy to repose confidence in Court. It has further submitted that the deceased was not in a position to speak as she was burnt 80%, therefore, it was not discernible as to what really the victim had told to the witnesses. Hence, those dying declarations cannot be connected with any other evidence. It has further submitted that the post mortem report Ex.P-10 issued by Dr. M.P. Joshi who conducted the autopsy, discloses that the cause of death was shock due to septicemia toxemia as a result of excessive burns. How did septicemia arise? No evidence is available in the case, therefore, it cannot be taken that the death was due to the burn injuries and not because of further and subsequent complications so on any count conviction cannot be sustained. He further submitted that deceased committed suicide at his own and appellant tried to save her. During rescue operation appellant himself sustained burn injuries.

6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the evidence on record is sufficient to conclude that the appellant was present all the while at the time of occurrence in his house. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of witnesses and dying declarations made by the deceased. The dying declarations spoken to the witnesses and the injuries found on the body of the deceased are sufficient enough to sustain the conviction that the accused might have attempted to save the deceased as is revealed by his injuries and the version of DW-1 is not sufficient to escape conviction. It is further submitted that there were 80% burn injuries. Treatment was given by the best hospital available in the city, therefore, there cannot have any failure in the treatment. The reason shown in Ex.P-10 may be obvious consequence