Dying declarations can support conviction but must inspire confidence and be supported by corroborative evidence, especially in cases of reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 19.03.2016 passed by learned Addl. Session Judge, Bali, District Pali, in Sessions Case No.44/2012 by which the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 24.08.2012, complainant Devi Singh gave a statement while admitted in Burn Ward of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur to the effect that on 18.08.2012 he traveled from Bangalore and reached Ahmedabad on 20.08.2012, he proceeded to Falna where his wife Suman Kanwar had run away to, after leaving her six month old child. Thereafter complainant contacted his father-in-law, Himmat Singh and the complainant was asked to bring the child to Falna. Upon which, he reached Falna on 20.08.2012 at about 5:00 P.M. and went to his in-laws’ house, where he had tea. As he was about to leave, his mother-in- law Padam Kanwar and brother-in-law Yashpal caught hold his hands and his father-in-law was standing behind him. At that moment, someone poured petrol on him and lit fire with the intention to cause his death. Upon which, the neighbours intervened to rescue him and took him to the hospital.

4. On the said report, Police registered the FIR No.113/2012 against the accused appellants and started investigation. During the course of investigation, Police arrested the accused-appellants and on completion of investigation, police filed challan against them.

5. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed the charges for the offence under Sections 302 /34 and 341 IPC to the accused appellants. They denied the charges and sought trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twenty-three witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case.

7. The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence, no witness was produced.

8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 19.03.2016 convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

9. Counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that the deceased and Suman Kanwar had entered into a court marriage and following which they resided happily at Bangalore and one child was also born of their wedlock. Suman Kanwar came to her parental house to meet her parents for the first time. Upon examining the dying declaration, it is evident that the thumb impression of the deceased was not present on the dying declaration. Additionally, the Doctor did not specify whether the deceased was mentally and physically fit to give the statement. Earlier on 20.08.2012 Doctor explicitly stated that the patient was unfit to make any statement. The dying declaration was recorded only on 24.08.2012, after obtaining second medical opinion. The deceased ultimately succumbed on 28.08.2012 i.e. after about eight days of the incident. Counsel further submits that all the present appellants were also got burn injury in this incident, which shows that the appellants tried to save the deceased, therefore, they a