In cases of multiple dying declarations, inconsistencies necessitate corroboration for conviction; the earliest declaration indicating self-immolation was preferred, creating reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

C. KUMARAPPAN, J.

Prayer: - Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai in S.C.No.58 of 2007 by its judgment dated 10.12.2018 and allow the appeal and acquit the Appellant herein.

The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order of conviction against the Appellant in S.C.No.58 of 2007 vide order dated 10.12.2018.

2. In the above sessions case originally, there were two Accused. During the pendency of the trial, the first Accused, Murthy, died, and the charges against him stood abated. Hence, as against the Second Accused, the trial proceeded, and the Trial Court found her guilty under Section 302 IPC.

3. According to the Prosecution case, Accused 1 and 2 are the husband and wife, who were in the business of financing. During the course of their business, the deceased had borrowed some amount to run his small eatery. In the course of such borrowing, there was some outstanding, and to collect such outstanding, the Accused, along with their henchmen, intimidated the deceased's wife. When the deceased went to the Accused residence and questioned their conduct, both the Accused have poured kerosene on the deceased and set him on fire, in pursuance thereof, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. It appears that subsequently, after coming to know about the incident, P.W-1, who is the wife of the deceased, gave a police compliant to one Mr.Chandran, Head Constable of the Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station, on 29.03.2003. On receipt of such a complaint, an FIR was registered in Cr.No.429 of 2003 at 17.15 hrs, which was forwarded to the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, as well as to the Investigating Officer, P.W-14.

4. After receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W-14 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar; recorded the statement of the mahazar and occurrence witnesses; and also recorded the statements of P.W-6 - Dr.N.Rajendran, and the Postmortem Doctor. The Postmortem Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to complications of burns. After recording the statements of all the witnesses, P.W-14 – Investigating Officer, laid the charge sheet against the Accused.

5. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, during trial, the Prosecution relied on 14 witnesses, and 15 documents. Besides, the Prosecution has also marked two Material Objects. On behalf of the Accused, one document was marked as Ex.D-1. The Trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary evidence, has arrived at a conclusion that, the Prosecution has proved the charge against the Second Accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted her under Section 302 IPC.

6. Assailing the said order, the Second Accused, namely, Appellant herein, has preferred the instant appeal.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant would vehemently contend that the entire Prosecution case suffers from factual and legal error, and that the version of P.W-1 is highly unbelievable. Though this case rests upon the dying declaration, the dying declarations are result of tutoring of P.W-1 [wife of deceased] and P.W-2 [brother of deceased] and therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that dying declaration cannot be a sole basis to lay conviction. He would further contend that, apart from the dying declaration, the other alleged eyewitnesses, namely P.W-3 and P.W-9, being the sons of the deceased, are interested witnesses and that their evidences have inherent improbabilities. Thus, he would contend that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges and hence prayed to allow the instant appeal.

8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would vehemently contend that, this is a case of multiple dying declarations. Though there are multiple dying declarations, the statement made b