A dying declaration can only serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and free from external influence; inconsistencies can undermine its reliability.

JUDGMENT :

R.POORNIMA, J.

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants/A1 and A2 in the judgment dated 21.11.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputur, in S.C.No.113 of 2013 by convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment each.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :

(a) The complainant was married to A1 three years prior to the occurrence. They were blessed with two female children aged about 2 years and 3 months respectively. Her husband was doing mason work. Whenever she demanded money for family expenditures, he created quarrels with her. Her mother-in-law also used to quarrel with her by stating that they needed to get rid of her so that her son could marry another woman. She has not told to her parents, because she does not want to cause them sorrow.

(b) On 12.01.2013, the accused went to his work and came at about 9.00 p.m., both her husband and mother-in-law created problem and stated that they would kill her. Her sister-in-law Pandiammal and her husband Balu also created problem. She tried to manage them but she could not do so.

(c)Thereafter, her mother-in-law took kerosene and poured it on her while her husband took a matchbox and set her ablaze. As a result, her saree caught fire. She raised alarm and ran outside in flames. The neighbours poured water and extinguished the fire. She sustained injuries on her chest, stomach, back, hands and legs. Due to pain from her burns, she was unable to identify the neighbours. Her husband informed her parents, who then came and took her in an auto to the Government Hospital, Aruppukkottai. She was later sent to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital for further treatment. In an attempt to get her husband remarried, the accused poured kerosene on her with the intention to kill her, set her on fire. Hence, she sought action against her mother-in-law, husband and others. The complaint was written by her cousin Thiru.Muthupandi, P.W.1.

(d) P.W.11.Thiru.Padmanabhan, Sub Inspector of Police, on 12.01.2013 at about 10.30 p.m., received intimation from the Government Hospital that one Jothi was admitted with burn injuries. He had gone to the said hospital and learnt that she was taken to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital for further treatment. Thereafter, on 13.01.2013, he went to the Rajaji Government Hospital and recorded her complaint statement was marked as Ex.P.1

(e) Thereafter, he had registered FIR in Crime No.12/2013 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act under Ex.P.2.

(f) P.W.19 Thiru.Kannan, Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Circle, after receipt of the FIR went to the place of occurrence at about 1'o clock on 13.01.2013 and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P8, rough sketch Ex.P10 in the presence of witnesses Kandhasamy, Vellaipandi.

(g) At about 14.00 hours, he recovered the kerosene cane M.O.1 under seizure mahazar Ex.P.9. He examined the witnesses Kandhasamy, Vellaipandi, Katturaja, Kamatchi, Adaikalam and recorded their statements.

(h) He had gone to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and recorded the statements of victim Jothi and Muthu Pandi. After learning the truth, he arrested the accused on the same day at about 7.00 p.m., near Elangipatti burial ground and brought them to the Police Station at about 7.30 p.m., and then he sent A2 for remand through Women Constable 969. He also sent the material objects under Form 95- Ex.P.11 to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court.

(i) On 14.01.2013 he examined witnesses Chokkammal, Saravanan, Chokkanan, Ramar, Adaikalam, and Raman and recorded their statements. After examining the witnesses he came to know that the accused Pandiyammal and Balu were not involved