Reliability of dying declaration and MLC report as crucial evidence in criminal cases.

( 1 ) BY this Appeal, the appellant prays for setting aside the judgment dated 29-1 -1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Garoth passed in S. T. No. 258/96 thereby he finding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, convicted and sentenced him to suffer Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. l. 000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to suffer addl. R. I. for one year.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution case as unfolded before the trial court were that on 9-6-1994 at 12. 40 in the noon in village Chandwas the appellant brought his wife in a Jeep in burnt condition to the Primary Health Center Shamgarh. There at the Primary Health Center, Dr. Smt. Asharani Jain (P. W. 10) finding the wife of the appellant namely Santoshbai in burnt condition, made a report at the Police Station which was recorded by the ASI P. S. Shamgarh Shri A. P. Saxena (P. W. 6) in roznamcha Sanha (Ex. P/8-A ). He proceeded for hospital for getting Santoshbai medically examined. Finding Santoshbai in 90% burnt condition, made requisition to dr. Smt. Jain (P. W. 10) for getting her Dying declaration recorded. Dr. Jain recorded the dying declaration of Santoshbai vide Ex. P/21, wherein Santoshbai stated that her husband had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil. Dr. Smt. Jain also gave MLC report Ex. P/22. Thereafter, she referred the patient to the district Hospital, Mandsaur. In the meanwhile, P. W. 6 Saxena also recorded the statement of Santoshbai and registered an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, against the appellant. During treatment in the District Hospital, Mandsaur Santoshbai breathed her last on 9-6-1996. The First information Report is at Ex. P/12. The requisition for postmortem examination is Ex. P/6. Dr. Shrimal conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Santoshbai and the postmortem report is at Ex. P/23. Dr. Patidar and Dr. Mishra also put their signatures on the report Ex. P/23. According to the postmortem report Santoshbai was 85 to 90% burnt and died due to shock of burn injuries.

( 3 ) THE appellant was arrested and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. The appellant denied his guilty and claimed trial. To establish its case, the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses. The defence did not examine any witness. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court finding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced him as indicated herein-above.

( 4 ) WE have heard Shri Anil Oza, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Manoj dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State and perused the entire record with due caution and care.

( 5 ) THE conviction of the appellant is mainly based on dying-declaration (Ex. P/21 recorded by P. W. 10 Dr. Shrimati Asha Rani jain, Ex. P/22 MLC Report prepared by Dr. Smt. Jain (P. W. 10) wherein causing of burn injuries by the appellants mentioned as disclosed by the deceased to the doctor and the learned trial Court sought corroboration to the evidence of Dr. Smt. Jain by the evidence of ASI A. P. Saxena (P. W. 6) and P. W. 9 s. P. Sharma, Sr. Officer of Forensic Science unit Mandsaur who inspected the house of the appellant and sent the seized articles for examination to the Forensic Science laboratory and according to the FSL Report, kerosene was found on the seized clothes and earth seized from the place of incident.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the Dying-declaration (Ex. P/21)is a concocted piece of evidence and brought into existence in ante date and time. He has also submitted that the statement of the deceased recorded in the MLC Report Ex. P/22 and the Dying-Declaration (Ex. P/21)are contradictory to each other. Therefore, no implicit reliance could have been placed by the trial Court on those documents. Learned counsel placed relianc