The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in relying on dying declarations and the importance of establishing the credibility of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Bhandari, J.)

1. The accused appellant has preferred two appeals, one through Jail bearing D.B. Criminal Appeal No.491/2017 and one through counsel bearing D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1723/2017. No one has put in appearance in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.491/2017, which was a Jail Appeal. Mr. Himmat Singh, Adv. has put in appearance in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1723/2017.

2. The accused appellant has challenged the judgment and sentence dated 19.01.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases) No.2, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur whereby he has been convicted for offence under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. For offence under Section 498-A of IPC, he has been sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and for offence under Section 302 of IPC, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of parchabayan of the deceased (Exhibit-P13), police registered an FIR No.319/2012 (Exhibit-P14) for offence under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC. After demise of the deceased, offence under Section 302 of IPC was added. It was alleged in the said parchabayan that the accused often gave beating to the deceased after consuming liquor. On the morning of 07.11.2012, accused abused the deceased, gave beating to her and poured kerosene upon her, upon which, she went to the neighbour’s house and thereafter, the accused brought her from the said house and set her ablaze. It is also mentioned that after she raised an alarm, the neighbourers gathered. She has mentioned that except her husband, no one is responsible. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the police conducted investigation and after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellant for offence under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. The charges for the aforesaid offences were read over to the accused. The accused denied the charges and sought trial, whereupon statements of PW-1 to PW-17 were recorded and 21 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. In defence, Exhibit-D2 was exhibited. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Court below convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above.

4. It is contended by the counsel for the accused appellant that witnesses i.e. Rajendra (PW-7), Prem Sheela (PW-9), Deepak Meena (PW-10), Sonu (PW-11) and Ramdhan (PW-12) have turned hostile. It is also contended that the parchabayan on the basis of which the FIR was lodged was not recorded after obtaining Fitness Certificate from the doctor. Admittedly, the deceased has sustained 95% burns. Whether she was in a fit condition to give statement was to be established before the Court and in absence of a doctor’s Certificate, the parchabayan looses its credibility. It is further contended that it was clear defence of the accused appellant that the deceased was cooking food on the stove, and when she tried to fill up the tank of the stove, she caught fire and when the accused tried to save her, he also sustained burn injuries. It is contended that in the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate, the deceased has set up a different story. As per the dying declaration, the deceased has stated that she went to the house of neighbour-Bihari and the appellant brought her back and thereafter, he poured oil and put her ablaze.

5. It is also contended that the deceased was tutored by her family members and the conviction could not have been based solely on the dying declaration of the deceased. It is further contended that the conduct of the accused ought to have been seen by the learned Court below. The accused tried to save his wife a