The prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on unreliable oral dying declarations and absence of key corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 23.11.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, District Raisen in Sessions Trial No.189/2004, by which appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 354 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that on 29.05.2003, deceased Lalita Bai and her son Lalchand had gone to forest area for collecting cow dunk. It is alleged that appellant committed rape on prosecutrix, as a result she committed suicide by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her. During treatment, she narrated the incident to doctor that some known person had outraged her modesty. The incident was also narrated by deceased to her husband Shriram and her brothers in Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal during her treatment. She lost her life during treatment and accordingly, Merg information was given. The FIR was lodged. Lash Panchnama was prepared. The dead body was handed over to her husband. The cause of death was found to be complications arising out of burn injuries and failure of respiratory system. The statements of witnesses including of Dr. Rajshree Mitra were recorded. The spot map was prepared. The accused was arrested and after completing investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 306 , 354 of IPC.

3. The trial Court by order dated 18.01.2005 framed the charges under Sections 376 , 306 of IPC.

4. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution examined Babulal (P.W.1), Mohanlal (P.W.2), Khilan Singh (P.W.3), Dr. V.K. Athwal (P.W.4), Madanlal Pandey (P.W.5), Lalchand Prajapati (P.W.6), Shriram (P.W.7), Munnalal Rajput (P.W.8) and C.M. Dwivedi (P.W.9). Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

6. The trial Court by impugned judgment and sentence acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 376 of IPC as well under Section 306 of IPC. However, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.

7. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by Court below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that entire prosecution case is based on the evidence of interested witnesses.

8. Per contra, appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for State.

9. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.

10. Babulal (P.W.1), Mohanlal (P.W.2) and Khilan Singh (P.W.3) are brothers of deceased. Lalchand Prajapati (P.W.6) is the son of deceased. Shriram (P.W.7) is the husband of deceased.

11. Lalchand Prajapati (P.W.6) has stated that he had gone alongwith his mother to forest area to collect cow dunk. He came back to his house ahead of his mother by 10-15 minutes. Since he was very tired, therefore, he went to sleep. After her mother came back, she went inside the house. After sometime, he heard the screams of her mother and saw that her mother was burning. He extinguished the fire by putting quilt on her. Thereafter, they took her to Hamidia Hospital