Point of Law: Dowry Death - Dying declaration - Conviction can be based on dying declaration alone without corroboration if the court finds the dying declaration trust-worthy and genuine.

JUDGMENT :

SAROJ YADAV, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/convict Bablu @ Nand Kumar against the judgment and order dated 14.7.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Court No. VIII, District Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2015 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short I.P.C.) with life-imprisonment, under Section 323 I.P.C. with six months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of fine, one month's additional simple imprisonment, under Section 326 I.P.C. with seven years' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of fine, six months' additional simple imprisonment, under Section 498-A I.P.C. with two years' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of fine, three months' additional simple imprisonment, under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with one year's imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine, two months' additional simple imprisonment.

The main grounds of challenge in memo of appeal are that the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed because the trial court has awarded maximum punishment provided under Section 304-B I.P.C. Prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. The statement-in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory but this aspect has not been considered by the learned trial court. The offences under Section 498-A, 304-B, 323 and 326 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ( in short 'D.P.Act.') are not made out against the appellant. The statements of prosecution witnesses are highly doubtful. The learned trial court has not considered the arguments of the appellant and evidence on record, in the right perspective. Learned trial court has failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the conviction order. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution. The learned trial court has committed illegality in disbelieving the defence version. There is no eye-witness of the crime. The appellant is innocent and has committed no crime. The trial court has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of appellant and the fact that he himself got burnt while trying to save the life of his wife, the deceased.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in short are as under:

An F.I.R. was registered at Case Crime No. 592/2014 on the basis of written report dated 5.11.2014 submitted by the complainant Raghuveer at Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, Faizabad. it was mentioned in the written report that daughter of the complainant named Saloni aged about 24 years was married to Bablu @ Nand Kumar about 4 years' back according to Hindu customs and rites. The appellant and other family members used to harass her for extra dowry and asked for motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/- in cash and other goods. Deceased Saloni used to tell about this to her mother and the complainant whenever she came to her parental home. Bablu @ Nand Kumar told her that he will go on 1.11.2014 to the parental house of the deceased and if the demands were not fulfilled, then he will beat and burn the deceased after pouring kerosene oil. The complainant tried to fulfil the demands of the appellant and his family members but on 2.11.2014, Bablu set ablaze the daughter of the complainant after pouring kerosene oil. His daughter was being treated in burn-ward of Faizabad Hospital.

3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant/convict only, under Sections 323, 326, 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The concerned magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The Sessions Court framed charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. and in alternative, charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The charges under sections 498-A, 323, 326 of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the D.P. Act were also framed.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case, exa