Point of Law: Dowry Death - Dying Declaration - Reliability of - It clearly emerges that it is not an absolute principle of law that a dying declaration cannot form sole basis of conviction of an accused when such dying declaration is true, reliable and has been recorded in accordance with established practice and principles and if it is recorded so then there cannot be any challenge regarding its correctness and authenticity.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Guddu, who was convicted and sentenced in S.T. No.124 of 2015 (State Vs. Guddu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.494 of 2014, registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 302/34 I.P.C. in alternative and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Khandauli, District Agra by which appellant was convicted and sentenced for ten years R.I. under Section 304-B I.P.C., for one year R.I. under Section 498-A I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and two months in default and for six months R.I. under Section 4 of D.P. Act with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default two months additional imprisonment.

2. The relevant brief facts of the case are that informant Bharat Singh lodged an F.I.R. on 07.11.2014 at Police Station Khandauli, District Agra with the averment that he had got married her daughter-Pinki on 23.03.2013 with Guddu-appellant son of Sriniwas, resident of village Poiya, Police Station Khandauli, District Agra and gave dowry according to his capacity but Pinki’s husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and other relatives and family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they started torturing his daughter for additional dowry. They started torturing mentally and physically to his daughter and demanded a motorcycle as additional dowry; his daughter told such type of treatment and demand to him several times and he tried to sort out the matter but in vain. His son-in-law and his family members continued their demand and threatened that in case their demand of additional dowry is not made out, his daughter would be killed. On 04.11.2014, at about 9 PM, Pinki’s husband, mother-in-law Sheela Devi, father-in-law Sriniwas, brother of Sriniwas-Neta (Chahiya Sasur), brother-in-law Dinesh (Jeth), sister-in-law Meena (Jethani) and brother-in-law Matadeen (Dever) poured kerosene oil on his daughter and set her ablazed for non-fulfillment of their additional demand of dowry. On getting information of occurrence, informant went to Heritage Hospital, Agra where his daughter was admitted and fighting for life. Informant’s daughter-Pinki told him the incident.

3. On the basis of above information, Case Crime No.494 of 2014 was registered at Police Station Khandauli, Agra. After investigation, investigating officer charge sheeted the husband of deceased Guddu, her father-in-law Sriniwas and mother-in-law Sheela Devi. Learned court below conduced the trial against above three accused persons by framing charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in alternative under Section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C.

4. After conclusion of trial while passing the judgment, learned trial court acquitted Shriniwas, father-in-law and Sheela Devi, mother-in-law for all charges levelled against them and convicted the appellant-Guddu (husband of deceased) to undergo ten years R.I. under Section 304-B I.P.C., for one year R.I. under Section 498-A I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and two months in default and for six months R.I. under Section 4 of D.P. Act with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default two months additional imprisonment. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. Aggrieved with the judgment, appellant-Guddu preferred this appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, First Information Report was lodged against eight persons. During investigation, according to Investigating Officer no evidence was found against five persons except husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and charge sheet was filed only against them. Hence, it is clear that informant implicated all the family members of husband of the deceased falsely and the story of prosecution becomes more false by the fact that after trial, learned trial court acquitted father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and only hu