A dying declaration must be recorded following specific procedural guidelines to be admissible; failure to comply undermines its reliability.

1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, is the appellant. The appellant - accused was charged for the offence of intentionally causing the death of his wifeSatyamma (deceased) by pouring kerosene on her and throwing a burning match - stick on her at 7 a.m. on 27-4-1989 at Masanpally cross - roads. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found him guilty of the offence; convicted him under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows : On 27-4-1989 at about 7.00 p.m. the accused came in a fully drunken state to his hotel at Masanpally cross - roads and demanded money from his wife - deceased for his drinking. As, by that time, he was already in a drunken condition, his wife refused to give money. On that, he poured kerosene on her and set her on fire by throwing a burning match stick. Then she was admitted in the Government Civil Hospital at Narayankhed. On a requisition sent by the doctor, P.W. 3, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narayankhed (P.W. 7) came and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased (Ex. P.6) in the presence of P.W. 8. On the basis of Ex. P. 1, first information report, given by P.W. 1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayankhed Police Station (P.W. 9) registered the crime under S. 307, I.P.C. The deceased was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for treatment of the burn injuries. She was taken back to her mother's house in Yenuguluru village on 9-5-1989 and she succumbed to the burn injuries on 9-5-1989. On receiving information about the death of the deceased, the provision of law has been altered into one under S. 302, I.P.C.

3. In all, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and marked Exs. P. 1 to P,12. Neither any witness has been examined nor any document has been marked on behalf of the defence.

4. The plea of the accused is one of total denial.

5. In the F.I.R. Ex. P.l, one Narayan (D.W. 2) was cited as an eye - witnesses. But, he was not produced before the Court. Bailable warrant also was issued and ultimately, he was given up.

6. The inquest panchayatdars came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to burn injuries. The doctor, P.W. 8, who treated her for the burn injuries and who conducted postmortem, opined in the post - mortem certificate, Ex. P. 8, that the deceased died due to "toxaemia and renal failure due to burns". The cause of death, according to the complaint, the version given in the dying declaration that has been recorded by P.W. 7, the opinion of the inquest panchayatdars and the post - mortem certificate, is the burn injuries received by her on 27-4-1989.

7. The only direct witness, who was examined as P.W. 2, turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution. He was permitted to be cross - examined by the Public Prosecutor and his statement that has been made before the police under S. 161, Cr. P.C. has been marked as Ex. P. 2.

8. The prosecution case, therefore, solely rests on the dying declaration recorded by P.W. 7 in the presence of P.W. 8. The trial Court found that the dying declaration, Ex. P. 6, which was recorded very shortly after the occurrence, supported by the oral dying declaration made before P.W. 1, brother of the deceased and P.W.4, mother of the deceased, establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.

9. Mr. P. Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, raised the following contentions. Firstly, the dying declaration, Ex. P. 6, that has been recorded by P.W. 7 cannot be relied upon. In support of this cont