The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for voluntary, truthful, and reliable dying declarations, along with the importance of corroboration, consistency, and surrounding facts and circumstances in assessing the credibility of dying declarations.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the conviction of the appellant and sentence in S.C. No.34 of 2015 dated 19.03.2018, on the file of the learned Mahila Sessions Judge, (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in judgment dated 19.03.2018 and acquit the appellant.)

Sunder Mohan, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 19.03.2018 in S.C.No.34 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai.

2(a). It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was married to one Ginjith, 15 years before the occurrence and had two children out of the wedlock; that the marriage between the deceased and the Ginjith was dissolved; that the deceased was working in an Export company at Ambattur and she became friendly with the appellant and were living as husband and wife for more than a year; that on 09.07.2013, when the deceased was preparing dinner after returning from work, the accused came in an inebriated condition and told the deceased that he was planning to marry another girl; that there was a quarrel on account of the same between the appellant and the deceased; that the appellant thereafter poured kerosene on the deceased by stating ; that when the deceased tried to escape, the appellant wrongfully restrained her; that on hearing the deceased scream, a neighbour by name Sukumar (P.W.3) took the deceased in an auto of one Baskar (P.W.5) to the house of P.W.1 (the mother of the deceased); that thereafter, P.W.1 took the deceased to the hospital; and that the deceased died on 12.07.2013 at 10:00 p.m.

(b). P.W.12, working as Sub Inspector of Police, received an intimation from the Burn Injuries Ward of KMC Hospital on 10.07.2013, went to the Hospital, recorded the statement of the deceased (Ex.P8), and obtained her signature. He thereafter registered the First Information Report (Ex.P9) for the offences under Sections 341, 324, and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellant. He thereafter visited the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P10). On the same day, he made a requisition to the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, (P.W.13), to record the statement of the victim (deceased). P.W.13 recorded the statement at 1:55 p.m., on 10.07.2013 and obtained the right thumb impression of the deceased on the statement in the presence of one Dr.Ramkumar. Dr. Ramkumar, was not examined by the prosecution and the signatures and writings of Dr.Ramkumar were proved through P.W.14, the Doctor, who was deputed as Medical Officer of Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital.

(c). The Inspector, (P.W.15), took up the investigation after the death of the deceased on 12.07.2013. He recorded the statements of other witnesses, filed an Alteration Report (Ex.P17), conducted an inquest in the presence of Panchayatars and prepared an Inquest Report, (Ex.P18). He sent the body for a postmortem, which was conducted by P.W.11. P.W.11 issued a Postmortem certificate (Ex.P6), and opined that the deceased died due to the side effects of burn injuries. After examination of all other witnesses, P.W.15 filed the Final Report for the offences under Sections 341, 302, and 506 (ii) of the IPC against the appellant before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

(d) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.34 of 2015 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai, for trial. The trial Court framed charges u/s.302 and 341 of the IPC as against the appellant and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty.

(e) To prove the case,