The dying declaration, supported by medical evidence and witness testimonies, can form the basis for conviction if it is true, voluntary, and inspires confidence of the Court.

S.K. Gangele, J.

1. Appellant Shrimati Ramshri Pal has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28th May, 2001 delivered by the Court of Special Judge (NDPS) and Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 362/1999, whereby she has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and two years RI and fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Present appellant along with acquitted co-accused Hema were tried for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, in the alternative302 IPC, read with section 34 IPC for harassing one Manju Pal (hereinafter, referred to as the "deceased") for demand of dowry and committing her murder of on 4/5/1999 by pouring kerosene oil and setting her on fire.

3. Prosecution story as unfolded in the impugned judgment is that the deceased was the married wife of Rajesh (DW 1). She often complained about ill treatment by her in-laws on account of demand of dowry. On 4/5/1999 Ramsingh (PW 2) got information that the deceased was admitted in the Kamla Raja Hospital. When he went to the hospital and asked his daughter as to how she caught fire, the deceased told him that her mother-in-law (present appellant) and sister-in-law used to pick up quarrels with her on account of demand of dowry and she was set on fire by pouring kerosene on her body. Deceased died on 4/5/1999 in the evening.

4. After the death of the deceased, a Marg was registered and investigation was commenced. FIR (Ex.P/8) of the incident was lodged at Police Station Madhav Ganj. On lodging of the FIR, prosecuting agency was set in motion. The appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/9. Police reached on the spot, prepared the spot map (Ex.P/4), seized an iron can, a steel tumbler, match sticks etc. vide seizure memo (Ex.P/5). Inquest of the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P/2 and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. Postmortem report is Ex.P/3. Dying declaration (Ex.P/7) of the deceased was recorded by Dr.Sanjana Lucas (PW 10).

5. After completing the investigation, the Police filed challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, which in turn committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. Police filed supplementary challan against acquitted co-accused Hema.

6. The prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and proved documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/9 on record, while the accused took the defence that the deceased did not want to live with her in laws, hence, she committed suicide. In support of the defence, the accused examined one Rajesh Pal (DW 1) husband of the deceased and proved documents Ex.D/1 to D/4 case diary statements of the witnesses.

7. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, came to hold that present appellant had committed murder of the deceased by pouring kerosene on her body and setting her on fire for demand of dowry. Trial Court convicted and sentenced her as indicated herein above. However, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against co-accused Hema, sister-in-law, beyond reasonable doubt, and acquitted her from all the charges.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant accused vehemently urged that the deceased committed suicide and the appellant had falsely been implicated in the case. Dying declaration (Ex.P/7) recorded by the doctor is not reliable and could not be made a basis for maintaining conviction. He further submits that Ward boy Raju Khan was a so called maternal uncle of the deceased and he influenced the doctor in recording the dying declaration. Learned counsel further submits that the doctor who recorded the dying declaration was not a regular doctor and was not authorised to record the dying declaration. He further submits that evidence of the parents of the deceased is also not reliable in as much a