The reliability of a dying declaration must be scrutinized with extra diligence by the court, considering the mental condition of the declarant and potential influencing factors such as animosity.

JUDGMENT :

ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the respondents who were tried by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kathua in File No. 29/Sessions in case FIR No. 151/2005 registered with Police Station, Rajbagh for offences under Section 302 read with 34 RPC.

2. The case of the prosecution briefly is that on 08.11.2005, an information was received in Police Post, Mahreen at 7:45 pm that a woman Sunita Devi had caught fire. The Police reached the scene of occurrence and they found that the deceased had caught fire in the house of the accused No. 2, from where she was shifted to District Hospital, Kathua in a critical condition. At the said hospital her statement was recorded wherein she disclosed that she was married to the accused No. 1 for the past 7 to 8 years and through the wedlock a daughter was born to them. She further stated that the accused No. 2 is the sister of the accused No. 1 and was married to her brother Raj Kumar. She further stated that the accused No. 2 was acting as a wedge between her (deceased) and her husband (accused No. 1) and created hostility in their matrimonial relationship. On the date of occurrence, the deceased had gone to the tenanted house of the accused No. 2 at about 7:30 pm, where, according to the deceased, both the respondents doused her with kerosene and set her on fire. She further states that she raised an alarm and several people from neighborhood had arrived at the place of occurrence and put out the fire. Upon the statement of the deceased, the aforementioned FIR was originally registered for offence under Section 307 read with 34 RPC, which was later on converted into 302 read with 34 RPC upon the death of the deceased four days after the incident.

3. During the course of investigation some half burnt pieces of clothes, a plastic container, a kerosene table lamp, a match box, a folding bed etc. were seized from place of occurrence and sent for FSL examination. In the meanwhile, the deceased was shifted to GMC, Jammu, where she succumbed to her injuries. The post-mortem report reflects that the death was on account of septicemia resulting from 98% burns suffered by the deceased. The burns have been extensive and they also include the right upper and left upper limb of the deceased. The relevance of this shall be discussed later on in this order.

4. Post investigation, the accused was charged for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 RPC. They pleaded not guilty and entered their defence. The Prosecution has examined several witnesses. Some of the natural witnesses who were there on the scene of occurrence have turned hostile. The entire crux of the prosecution’s case is hinged on the dying declaration of the deceased. The same is exhibit P27 to exhibit P27/1 and exhibit P-23-MU.

5. Before recording the statement of the deceased, the certification of the Doctor at the Hospital in Kathua was taken. The reference to the said Doctor is in paragraph 11 of the trial court judgment. He is PW-Mukul Ubbott. He was posted at Kathua Hospital and gave the initial treatment to the deceased and referred her to Jammu for further treatment. He states that he issued the fitness certificate, which is exhibit 23M, at 8.40 pm. He further states in his testimony that the statement of the deceased was not recorded in his presence and that the deceased, though in distress, was talking. He also states that he has not recorded the particulars regarding the fitness. We have examined the exhibit 23M and have found that no particulars regarding the fitness of the deceased to give a statement, is recorded in the said exhibit.

6. The next witness of importance has been referred to by the trial Court in paragraph 12. He is PW Ranbir Singh, who states that statement of the deceased was recorded in his presence. He further states that the deceased has stated that she was put on fire by the accused persons. In cross-examination, this witness states that the SHO did not