JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

The sole accused who was tried and convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC, has challenged the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Fast Track Court, Special Sessions Court for Mahila Cases, Ramanathapuram in S.C.No.93/2012 dated 06.09.2019.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant on 24.01.2012 at about 06.00 p.m had caused the death of his wife Shanmugasundari provoked by her refusal to give money for the purpose of consuming liquor. The appellant is alleged to have poured kerosene on the victim Shanmugasundari and set fire on her.

3. On information from the Government Hospital, Kamuthi, P.W.20, Sub-Inspector of Police went to the hospital and examined the victim Shanmugasundari, recorded her statement and registered the case in Crime No.6 of 2012 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. The victim had given a statement before P.W.14, the learned Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, the victim Shanmugasundari died on 25.01.2012 at about 10.30 a.m. After investigation, the respondent police filed final report as aforesaid.

4. Before the Sessions Court, the Prosecution had examined 24 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. The appellant/accused had not examined any witness or marked any document on his side.

5. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Shanmugasundari. P.W.2 is the sister. P.W.3 is the mother and P.W.4 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. P.W.5 to P.W.9 are the neighbours of the deceased. P.W.10 is the witness to the confession and recovery from the accused. P.W.12 is said to have heard the sound from the house of the accused and doused the fire on the deceased. P.W.13 is the Village Administrative Officer, who is said to have witnessed the recovery made from the accused. P.W.14 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the Dying Declaration which is marked as Ex.P.7. P.W.15 is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased. P.W.16 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.17 is the Doctor, who examined the deceased on 24.01.2012 and has made entry in the Accident Register (Ex.P.8). P.W.19 is the Constable, who delivers the First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate. P.W.20, Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report and recorded Ex.P.1 Statement from the deceased. P.W.21 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem. P.W.22 is the Doctor, who examined the deceased at Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. P.W.23 is another Doctor who examined the deceased at the same hospital. P.W.24 is the Investigating Officer.

6. The Trial Court on the basis of the various Dying Declarations marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.7 and another entry made in the Accident Register (Ex.P.8) and considering evidence of the relatives of the deceased, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that the dying declarations are not acceptable as there is evidence to show that the victim was capable of giving dying declarations. Further, there is possibility of tutoring by the relatives P.W1 to P.W.4. There is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the offence charged against him. P.Ws.1 to 4 are relatives and their evidence is hearsay in nature. They cannot corroborate the dying declarations which is not reliable and trustworthy. Further, the learned counsel would submit that in Ex.P.1 statement recorded by P.W.20 Sub-Inspector of Police, the finger print of the deceased was taken at 21.00 hours on 24.01.2012, whereas, in the dying declaration recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate at about 11.45 p.m i.e., 2 hours after the earlier statement recorded by P.W.20, the finger print could not be obtained. However, the prints of the right toe only was obtained by Doctor. This aspect also throws serious doubts in the prosecution case with regard to the fitness of the deceased to give dying dec