When multiple dying declarations are irreconcilable, the court must evaluate all evidence on record. If the earliest declaration, supported by other material evidence, is suppressed by the prosecution, secondary dying declarations cannot form the sole basis for a criminal conviction.

JUDGMENT :

B V L N Chakravarthi, J.

The appeal is preferred by the appellant/convict/accused challenging the Judgment dated 10.06.2009 delivered in S.C.No.535 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

2. The appellant/accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’). He was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned before the learned Sessions Court.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Smt.Dudekula Fathima (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased) is the wife of the accused. They are residents of B-Kodur Village. Their marriage was solemnized ten years ago. They were blessed with a male child (PW-2). Later, the accused addicted to alcohol started suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and harassing her. On 12.01.2007, at about 8:00 pm, the accused came to the house in intoxication. He abused the deceased. He beat her. He instigated her to commit suicide. The deceased poured kerosene on her body and searching for a match box. The accused picked up a match box and lit a matchstick. He set fire the deceased. She raised cries. Neighbours came there and shifted her to the Government Hospital at Nandyal.

5. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PW-15 of Bandiatmakur Police Station visited the Hospital at about 7:00 am on 13.01.2007, on the receipt of MLC intimation from the Hospital. He recorded the statement of the deceased in the presence of PW-13, Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Nandyal. He registered Ex.P15 as a case in Cr.No.07 of 2007 vide Ex.P16-FIR and submitted the same to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. He visited the Hospital again and examined PW-2 and PW-3. Later, proceeded to the scene of offence located at B-Kodur Village. Observed the same, in the presence of PW-9 and others prepared Ex.P8-Panchanama and Ex.P17-Rough Sketch. He examined and recorded statements of PWs-5, 6 and 10.

6. On 14.01.2007, he proceeded to the Government Hospital at Nandyal. He examined and recorded PWs-1, 4 and another. On 20.01.2007, he received an intimation from the Hospital about death of the deceased. Therefore, he took steps to alter the provisions relating to offence vide Ex.P18-Memo and submitted the same to the Magistrate. Later, handed over the investigation to Inspector of Police, PW-14.

7. The Inspector of Police, PW-14 verified the investigation made by the Sub-Inspector of Police. He visited Government Hospital at Nandyal examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and others. He took steps to conduct inquest over the dead body vide Ex.P14-Inquest Report. Later, PW-11 i.e. Civil Surgeon at Allagadda Government Hospital conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P10- Postmortem Report opining that the cause of death due to shock due to septicemia on account of the burn injuries. The Inspector of Police i.e., PW-16 who conducted further investigation in the case laid the charge sheet after conclusion of the investigation before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

8. The Magistrate registered the same, report filed by the Police as PRC No.77 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nandyal. It was committed to the Court of Sessions, Kurnool Division under Section 209 Cr.P.C. It was registered as S.C.No.535 of 2008. It was later made over to III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal for trial in accordance with law.

9. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge charged the accused for the offence under Section 498-A and 302 IPC. The charge was read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

10. The prosecution to substantiate the above charge examin