The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations, the necessity of corroborative evidence, and the mental and physical fitness of the deceased are crucial in determining guilt in cases of dowry harassment and related offences.

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

Appellants, two in number, who are husband/A1 and mother-in-law/A3 of the deceased respectively, stand convicted in S.C.No.68 of 2005 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 read with 34 I.P.C, and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for which they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment; life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default six months rigorous imprisonment; and rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-each, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, they are before this court in this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred to as A1 and A3 respectively.

3. According to the prosecution the occurrence took place at about 10.00 p.m. on 28. 2004. Their case is, A1 caught hold of the deceased; A3 poured kerosene on the deceased and then A2 threw a lighted matchstick on the deceased resulting in her death on 9. 2004. To prove their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 besides marking Exs.P1 to P15 and M.Os.1 to 6. The defence had let in documentary evidence Ex.D1.

(a) P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Kumari alias Jayakumari. P.W.1s evidence is that his daughter is the wife of A1. On the next day of occurrence, at about 11 am, he received information that the deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital at Erode. Immediately, he proceeded to the Government Hospital at Erode and enquired the deceased about the occurrence. The deceased informed that A1 to A3 poured kerosene on her and set fire. She succumbed to the injuries on 9. 2004.

(b) P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that sixteen years before, the deceased was married to the accused and got a boy, P.W.6, studying at 8th standard at the time of occurrence. The deceased was harassed for dowry. Three months prior to the occurrence, Panchayat was conducted and thereafter, she was sent to her in-laws house, along with P.W.6, who was studying in her house. At about 10 pm on 28. 2004, P.W.6 came to her house stating that all the accused were harassing the deceased demanding dowry and that they would set her on fire by pouring kerosene or throw her in the river, if she reveals about the harassment to anybody. On the next day, on receiving the telephonic information, she went to the Hospital, where, the deceased informed her that the accused were harassing her demanding dowry and while A1 caught hold of her hands and A3 poured kerosene, A2 threw the lighted matchstick on her.

(c) P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. He stated about the cruelty the deceased was subjected to at the hands of the accused for dowry and about the statement given by the deceased in the hospital that A2 and A3 caught hold of her hands and A1 poured kerosene and set fire on her.

(d) P.W.4 is the younger brother of the deceased. He deposed that on receipt of telephonic information about the admission of the deceased in the hospital with burn injuries, he went to the hospital, wherein he was informed that A1 caught hold of her hands, A3 poured kerosene and A2 set fire on her, demanding dowry. He has also attested his signature to the observation Mahazar, Ex.P1.

(e) P.W.5, maternal uncle of the deceased, also deposed about the statement given by the deceased that A1 caught hold of her hands, A3 poured kerosene and A2 set fire on her, demanding dowry. He attested his signature to the Mahazar for seizure of M.Os.1 to 4, Ex.P2 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P13.

(f) P.W.6 is the son of the deceased and A1. He deposed that all the accused harassed the deceased several times demanding dowry. He was studying at his maternal grand parents house. Three months prior to the occurrence, when the deceased was staying at her parents place, a panchayat was conducted, wherein it was decided to leave the deceased in the house of the accused, along with P.W.6, so that there would not