A dying declaration can be treated as sufficient evidence if found credible; corroboration is not legally mandated if the declaration is true and voluntarily made.

JUDGMENT :

S.K.PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 4 39 of Cr. P.C seeking bail in connection with Bahalda P.S. Case No.72 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.619 of 2019 pending before the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur. The petitioner herein is the accused in connection with alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 304(B), 302, 34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage was solemnised between the deceased and the petitioner/Abdul Wasim, S/o Abdul Mashid of village Baddundu three years ago. After marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. On 15.11.2019 the petitioner and the deceased had a severe quarrel. On 16.11.2019 at about 4 A.M., the petitioner poured kerosene over the body of the deceased and set her ablazed, subsequent to which, she succumbed to death in the hospital. Thereafter, the informant (brother of the deceased) lodged the FIR in the Bahalda Police Station.

3.Heard Mr. S. S. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and perused the case records pertaining to the instant case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. The allegations as stated in the FIR are omnibus in nature and there is absolutely no allegation of any specific overt act against the present petitioner. The dying declaration recorded by Senior Medical Officer clarifies that she was cutting onions in the kitchen while the incident took place and there was no person nearby the victim. Subsequently, the kerosene jerrycan fell down over the gas and set fire. Moreover, the statements of material witnesses show that at the time of the occurrence, the accused had been to nearby pond to take a bath. Therefore, there is no ingredient of Section 302 of IPC present in this case. Hence, he may be granted bail.

5.Learned counsel for the State submits that at the time of occurrence of the incident i.e. at 4 A.M., which is quite early in the morning and the statements of witnesses in support of his alibi seems improbable considering the difficulty in availability of witnesses at such an early morning in the Winter season. Further, he has contended that the dying declaration recorded by the Medical Officer is dubious in nature as it has been recorded in a questionnaire form which is not the standard method. He has further emphasised the fact that the I.O. has also not relied on the dying declaration and has attached Section 302 IPC in the charge sheet. In view of these, the bail petition deserves to be rejected.

6.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The circumstances though look suspicious but the declaration made by the deceased under Section 32 of the Evidence Act is admissible in evidence. In K. Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. v. The Public Prosecutor , (1976) 3 SCC 618 , it was held that a great solemnity and sanctity is attached to the words of a dying man because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies or to concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person yet the Court has to be on guard against the statement of the deceased being a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of his imagination. It was further held that the Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement after the deceased had a clear opportunity to observe and identify his assailants and that he wa