Dying declarations can be upheld as credible evidence without corroboration if found true and voluntary, emphasizing careful scrutiny for any signs of tutoring.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. The appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment in S.C.No.133 of 2012 dated 26.02.2015 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Miryalguda. Questioning the said conviction, present appeal is filed.

2. P.W.1, resident of Ramapuram, has five daughters, including Kalavathi and Nagalaxmi (herein after referred as D1). Two years prior to 2011, the appellant, Kalavathi, and some relatives went to Marrigudem, the village of Malleshwar Rao (hereinafter referred as D2, who is the husband of D1), to discuss marriage proposal for D1. However, since D2 was still studying, it was agreed that the marriage would take place at a later date. Since then, D2 has been visiting D1 and her family. Kalavathi is the wife of appellant.

3. In March/April 2011, Kalavathi travelled to Marrigudem to work as a labourer, cutting paddy fields, and stayed there for a month. Upon her return, the appellant began suspecting that Kalavathi and D2 had engaged in an illicit affair during her stay in Marrigudem. As a result, he physically abused Kalavathi, prompting her to leave him and move back to her parents’ home. She has been staying at her parents’ place 3-4 months prior to the incident.

4. During this period, D1 and D2 got married. The appellant attempted to reconcile with Kalavathi, but when she refused to return, he was convinced that she and D2 were having an affair, and D1 was cooperating in their relationship.

5. On 14.8.2011, D1 and D2 travelled on D2’s bike to Ramapuram to attend Mutyalamma festival. The following day, on 15.8.2011, the appellant also arrived there. Appellant allegedly brought a knife with him, which was seen by his mother-in-law, PW1, who showed the same to the village elders.

6. On the night of 15.8.2011, D1 and D2 were sleeping outside on cots in front of their house, while PW1 slept on a cot some distance away. It is alleged that the appellant took petrol from D2’s bike, poured it over D1 and D2, set them on fire, and fled. D1 and D2 woke up in agony, seeing the appellant running away. P.W.1 witnessed the appellant pouring petrol on D1 and D2 and setting them on fire. They were shifted to Teja Nursing Home, Kodad of Dr R.B Raju. D1 succumbed to her injuries the following morning after her dying declaration was recorded by P.W.22. P.W.22 also recorded statement of D2. D2 was then shifted to Mamatha Hospital, Khammam and from there, he was shifted to Govt hospital, Vijayawada, and while undergoing treatment D2 passed away on 27.8.2011.

7. Learned Sessions Judge examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 22 and marked Exs.P1 to P.Ws.25. MOs.1 to 7 were also placed on record. During the course of cross-examination of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, Exs.D1 to D8 were marked which are contradictory portions of their statements given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge found favour with the prosecution case and accordingly convicted the appellant.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the witnesses P.Ws.5, 6, 9 and 13 turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 who spoke about the incident are interested witnesses since they are close relatives of D1 and D2. In fact, P.Ws.3 and 4 are not direct witnesses to the incident. P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 are the witnesses who spoke about their coming to know about the incident through others. The evidence of P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 is hearsay in nature. Learned counsel further argued that according to P.W.19, who