The evidentiary value of a dying declaration is undermined by doubts regarding the deceased's mental state and reliability during its recording, rendering conviction unsafe without corroborative evidence.

Judgment :

D.Dash, J.

1. Since in both these Appeals, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in S.T. Case No.4 of 2015 arising out of G.R. Case No.293 of 2014 corresponding to Jhumpura P.S. Case No.73 of 2014 of the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Champua are under challenge; those were heard together, for being disposed of by common judgment.

The Appellant No.1 is the husband of the Appellant No.2. The Appellant No.1 with his wife (Appellant No.2) and his parents, namely, Sukadev Mahanta and Rukmuni Mahanta faced the trial for commission of offence under sections 498(A)/302/304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’) and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’). The parents of the Appellant No.1 having been acquitted of all the charges, these Appellants have been found guilty for committing the offence under section 302/34 I.P.C. Accordingly, each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Being aggrieved by the above judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellants (accused persons) have preferred these Appeals.

2. Prosecution case is that one Lilimani Mahanta (deceased) had married accused Bidyadhar when his marriage with the first wife by the accused Malati was subsisting and she as his first wife with two sons was residing in a separate house being the dependents of accused, Bidyadhar. Lilimani being married by accused Bidyadhar for the second time when stayed in the house, cruelty was meted out at her by these accused persons as well as her parent-in-laws. She was tortured both physically and mentally. The demand was being advanced for bringing dowry so that she would be relieved of the problems that she was facing. On 02.10.2014, Sanatan Mahanta (Informant-P.W.8) who happens to be the brother of Lilimani received an information that his sister had received burn injuries. Having heard the same, Sanatana (Informant-P.W.8) immediately proceeded to the house where accused Bidyadhar, Malati, deceased-Lilimani and the parents of the accused Bidyadhar were residing. On arrival, he came to know that his sister Lilimani had already been shifted to District Headquarter Hospital, Keonjhar (for short, ‘DHQ Hospital’) for better treatment. So, he went there and saw his sister Lilimani lying on bed with severe burn injuries all over her body. Lilimani then told the Informant (P.W.8) that on 01.l0.2014 around 8 p.m., her husband, parent-in-laws and the other wife of her husband doused her with kerosene and set fire at her for non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry. Sanatan Mahanta thereafter went to Jhumpura Police Station and it was around 3 p.m., a written report to the above effect was presented to the Inspector-in-Charge (I.I.C.) of Jhumpura Police Station. The I.I.C. then treating the same as First Information Report (F.I.R.) immediately registered the case and directed one Sub-Inspector of Police (S.I.-P.W.12) attached to the Police Station to take up investigation. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.12) examined the Informant and seized one notarized certificate under seizure list (Ext.3). Visiting the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.15) and examined other witnesses. During spot visit, one plastic jerican containing 500 ml of kerosene, burnt saree along with one Kantha (thin mattress) were seized from the spot, i.e., the house of the accused under se