The court upheld the Dying Declaration as credible evidence, affirming the conviction for murder based on the appellant's direct involvement in the crime.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased, who objected to the appellant's affair with the deceased's wife. The deceased was kidnapped and set on fire, leading to his death. The Dying Declaration was pivotal in establishing the appellant's guilt. (Paras 1-4, 12-14)

(B) Dying Declaration - The court upheld the Dying Declaration as credible, noting the deceased was in a fit state of mind when it was recorded. The evidence of the medical officer corroborated the circumstances of the incident. (Paras 3, 13)

(C) Benefit of Doubt - The court distinguished the present case from precedents where benefit of doubt was granted, emphasizing the direct involvement of the appellant in the crime. (Paras 10-12)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased, who was set on fire after being kidnapped due to a personal dispute involving the appellant and the deceased's wife. The Dying Declaration recorded by a Tahsildar was crucial in the prosecution's case.

Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's judgment, affirming the conviction based on the Dying Declaration and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the Dying Declaration and whether the appellant's identity was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Dying Declaration was credible and supported by medical evidence, dismissing the appellant's claims regarding the recording of the statement.

Result: Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Surender, J.)

1. The appellant/A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment in S.C.No.374 of 2011 dated 29.10.2015 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Medak. Questioning the said conviction, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that A1 along with A2 to A5 have conspired and murdered the deceased who is the husband of A5. The reason for the murder is that A1/appellant and A5 were having an affair and the deceased objected to it. For the said reason, there was a fight in between the appellant, deceased and A5. The deceased was kidnapped from Lakdikapool by A1 to A4 and put in an auto on 26.12.2010. He was taken near a village in Medak District. The deceased was dragged out of the auto and A1 poured kerosene and set deceased on fire. The said incident was witnessed by P.W.2. Hearing P.W.2 shout and also seeing other villagers, all the accused left. P.W.2 did not identify any of the accused.

3. P.W.2 along with other villagers shifted deceased to the Medak Government Hospital. Requisition was given by Sub- Inspector of Police to P.W.3, Tahsildar of Medak, for recording the Dying Declaration of the deceased. Around 9.35 p.m, on the same day, P.W.3 went to the hospital and the duty Doctor/P.W.4 having certified that the deceased was conscious and in a sound state of mind, P.W.3 recorded the statement/Dying Declaration. In the statement made to P.W.3, the deceased narrated that the appellant was having illicit relation with his wife/A5. A1 and three others kidnapped him and took him to Ralamadugu village, beat him and the appellant poured kerosene and set him ablaze. Hearing the deceased crying, the appellant and others fled. Left thumb impression of the deceased was taken on the Dying Declaration/statement recorded by P.W.3, which is Ex.P2. After recording statement also P.W.4 endorsed that the deceased was in a fit state of mind during the statement being recorded.

4. The deceased died on 29.12.2010 while undergoing treatment. Ex.P1 complaint was filed by the brother of the deceased P.W.1 on 30.12.2010 alleging that the appellant and others have killed the deceased.

5. The police, having conducted investigation, filed charge sheet against the appellant/A1 and A2 to A5. Learned Sessions Judge having framed charges for the offences of kidnapping and murder of the deceased, examined relevant witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has failed to prove the complicity of A2 to A5 and accordingly, acquitted them.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly relied on the Dying Declaration and the evidence of P.W.12, who is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy of the dead body. According to the Doctor/P.W.12, the injuries were ante-mortem mixed flame burns preset all over body except scalp and soles of both feet. The cause of death is due to the shock due to burns. Ex.P15 is the report.

7. Learned counsel submits that when there are burns all over the body except scalp and soles, as stated by P.W.12, the question of deceased putting thumb impression on the Dying Declaration recorded by P.W.3 does not arise. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gian Kaur and Another, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2809, wherein it is held as follows:

"5. The High Court disbelieved the dying declaration on the ground that even though according to the medical evidence Rita had 100% burns, the thumb mark of Rita appearing on the dying declaration had clear ridges and curves. The High Court found the evidence of Dr Ajay Sahni-PW 1 not reliable as he failed to satisfactorily explain how such a thumb mark could appear on the dying declaration when Rita had 100% burns over her body. The High Court relied upon the deposition of Doctor Aneja, who had performed the post-mortem and who has categorically stated that there were 100% burns over her body and bo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document