The court determined that reliance on a dying declaration in a semi-comatose state without corroborating evidence is insufficient for conviction in a dowry-related homicide case.

JUDGMENT :

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

Heard Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Cr. A (D.B.) No. 246 of 1998 (R), Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. A (D.B.) No. 231 of 1998 (R) and opposed by Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.08.1998 passed by Shri S.H. Kazmi, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 368/1997, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 304-B/34, 498A/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the appellant in Cr. A (D.B.) No. 246 of 1998 (R) has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life u/s 304-B/34 of the IPC, while the appellants in Cr. A (D.B.) No. 231 of 1998 (R) have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years each, u/s 304- B/34 of the IPC. No separate sentence has been passed for the conviction u/s 498A/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sangeeta Sahu (deceased) recorded on 27.05.1997 at 5:15 P.M., in which, it has been alleged that on the same day at 10:45 A.M. her husband had asked her to bring the balance dowry amount from her house and when she expressed her inability to meet such demand due to the poor financial condition of her father and in course of quarrel the husband of the informant poured kerosene oil upon her from a stove and set her ablaze. It has been alleged that when the informant raised an alarm her husband managed to douse the fire which had engulfed her. The informant was thereafter taken to a Hospital for treatment. It has also been alleged that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant used to demand dowry and instigate the husband of the informant to torture her.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 23/1997 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 341/498A/324/326/307/34 of the IPC and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted u/s 498A/304-B/34 of the IPC and u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 368/1997. Charge was framed u/s 304-B/34 of the IPC, Section 4 98A/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case.

6. P.W.1 (Bani Hazra) has stated that on the date of the occurrence he was in his house when he heard a cry of alarm and when he came out he saw Sangeeta in a burnt condition and her husband was sitting beside her.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not witnessed the incident. He has also deposed that the relationship between Sangeeta and Ashish was cordial. The family members of Ashish did not use to come to his residence.

7. P.W.2 (Lata Devi) did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.

8. P.W.3 (Haripado Chakroborty) also did not support the case of the prosecution and was accordingly declared hostile by the prosecution.

9. P.W.4 (Prasanta Raut) has stated that when he returned from his duty in the evening at night he came to