JUDGMENT :

SUJOY PAUL, J.

1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assails the judgment dated 29/03/2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 412/2013 decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur whereby appellant was held guilty for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC and directed him to undergo sentence of Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

2. In short, the case of prosecution is that deceased Jyoti is the wife of present appellant. The appellant allegedly poured Kerosene on Jyoti and set her ablaze. There are multiple dying declarations in this matter.

3. First dying declaration (Ex.P/19) was recorded on 17/03/2013 at 11:40 P.M. by Sub-Inspector Rajkumar Tiwari (PW-15). Second dying declaration (Ex.P/11) was recorded by Dr. A.K. Verma (PW-8) on 18/03/2013 at about 02:30 A.M. and the third dying declaration (Ex.P/12) was recorded by Smt. Rashmi Chaturvedi-Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, Omti, Jabalpur (PW-11) on 18/03/2013 at about 11:25 P.M.

4. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/18) was recorded at the instance of deceased Jyoti by Rajkumar Tiwari (PW-15). This Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/18) was recorded on 17/03/2013 at around 23:55 O’ clock. This Nalishi assumes the character of dying declaration because of death of deceased Jyoti.

Contention of appellant:

5. Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant by taking this Court to the multiple dying declarations mentioned hereinabove urged that there are inconsistencies in the dying declarations. However, there is one thing which is common in all the dying declarations that deceased Jyoti has stated that appellant used to consume liquor and on the date of incident also, he was under the influence of liquor. A quarrel took place and during quarrel, he slapped her and then after pouring Kerosene on her, set her ablaze.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies in such dying declarations, the conviction recorded on the basis of dying declarations cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

7. To elaborate, Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in dying declaration dated 17/03/2013, the signature of deceased finds place whereas in dying declaration dated 18/03/2013 (Ex.P/11) the thumb impression of deceased is there. Pertinently, in dying declaration dated 18/03/2013 (Ex.P/12) there exists neither a thumb impression nor her signature. This dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate Smt. Rashmi Chaturvedi (PW-11).

8. Dr. Verma (PW-8) categorically admitted that victim was admitted in the hospital at 12:30 in the night. Thus, question of recording the dying declaration prior to that time does not arise. This creates doubt on the dying declarations recorded prior to the admission of deceased in the hospital.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant by placing heavy reliance on an affidavit (Ex.D/1) urged that in this affidavit, the thumb impression of deceased finds place which is supported by Bhuri Bai (mother of deceased) as a witness. The contents of the affidavit were read over by the Notary to the deceased and she accepted that such dying declaration was her version. Before that, Notary has consulted the doctor available there doing house job and he informed the Notary that victim is in a fit state of health/mind to give the statement. This affidavit is prepared on 17/05/2013 just before her death i.e. on 19/05/2013 and therefore, this affidavit/dying declaration should prevail.

10. Another limb of argument of Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased’s brother Sunil Kumar (PW-3) and mother Bhuri Bai (PW-5) have turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. In this view of the matter, the dying declarations have lost much of their significance.

11. It is further argued that incident had taken place on 17/03/2013 and victim died on 19/05/2013. The statement