The court upheld the conviction based on corroborated dying declarations, emphasizing their reliability despite witness hostility.

1. This appeal is filed assailing the judgment, dated 03.03.2009, passed by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Anantapur, in SC No. 478 of 2006. The sole accused was tried for the offences punishable under S.498 - A and 302 IPC. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under S.302 IPC and imposed punishment of imprisonment for life in addition to fine of Rs.500/-. The accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under S.498A IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution as presented before the trial Court was that the accused was married to the deceased in the year 1999 and out of their wedlock, a male and a female children were born. It was alleged that the accused had illicit intimacy with one Mahadevi of Ballari and in his attempt to bring that woman also to his home, he was insisting that the deceased must not raise any objection. It was stated that the accused has indiscriminately beaten the deceased on several occasions, by consuming alcohol.

3. The deceased was admitted in Government Area Hospital, Guntakal, with serious burn injuries at about 4.00 P.M., on 06.02.2006. The officials of the hospital issued requisition to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal and intimation to the police. Before PW 11 reached the hospital, the Head Constable of P.S. Guntakal, recorded the statement of the deceased, marked Ext. P.14. Soon thereafter, PW 11 arrived, and he recorded the dying declaration, marked as Ext. P11. Almost simultaneous requisition was given for recording statement of the accused also by the authorities of the same hospital, since injuries were noticed on his body, also. His statement was recorded by PW 11 as Ext. P.12.

4. Based upon the information received by them, the police registered Crime No. 7 of 2006, alleging the offence under S.498A IPC, against the accused. The deceased succumbed to injuries at 7.45 P.M., on the same day. Thereupon, the provision of law was changed, in the FIR.

5. The police arranged for preparation of the scene of offence panchanama, caused inquest and post - mortem and recorded the statements of various persons, who are said to be acquainted with the facts of the case. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed by PW 15. The trial Court framed necessary charges against the accused. PWs. 1 to 15 were examined by the prosecution and Exts. P1 to P.19 were filed. MO 1, one plastic can, was also taken on record. The result of the sentence has already been indicated in the preceding paragraphs.

6. Sri. M. Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the trial Court based its findings only on the dying declarations, marked as Exts. P1 and P.14, though they were not corroborated by any other evidence. He contends that almost all the non - official witnesses examined before the trial Court, except PWs. 6 and 7, the father and maternal uncle of the deceased, turned hostile and still the accused was held guilty of the offence. Learned counsel further submits that the very method of recording of Ext. P.11, by PW 11 - Magistrate, was shown to be not in accordance with law, and in that view of the matter, the same cannot be taken into account. As regards Ext. P.14, he submits that necessary precautions were not taken before recording it and even that deserves to be omitted from consideration.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that Ext. P11 was recorded by the learned Magistrate, duly following the prescribed procedure and from a perusal thereof, it is evident that the deceased categorically stated that the accused poured kerosene and set he