Dying declarations must be consistent for legal value; inconsistent declarations undermine grounds for conviction under dowry death charges.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4-7-2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh in S. T. No. 11/12 conviction and order of sentence dated 4-7-2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh in S. T. No. 11/12 convicting the accused / appellant under S.304 - B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC ') and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo additional SI for 1 year.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26-11-2011 FIR (Ex. P - 21) was lodged by Birendra Dubey (PW - 15), father of deceased, alleging in it that marriage of deceased Pragya alias Sapna was solemnized with acquitted accused Sudhir Dixit on 31-1-2011. Immediately after the marriage, the accused persons started harassing and torturing the deceased for bringing inadequate dowry in the marriage. On 24-11-2011 the accused persons had poured the kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchbox causing 95% burn injuries which has resulted into her death on 3-12-2011 in the hospital. It has been further alleged that on being informed, he visited the hospital where the deceased disclosed to him that she was burnt by the accused persons. Based on this repot, un - numbered FIR was registered under S.307, S.498A, S.34 of IPC against the four accused persons i.e. Kamlesh Dixit (father - in - law); Sudhir Dixit (husband); Vimal Dixit (brother - in - law) and the present appellant. Merg intimation (Ex. P - 3) was recorded on 3-12-2011. During the course of investigation, three dying declarations of the deceased were recorded on 24-11-2011 vide Ex. P - 21, Ex. P - 28 and Ex. P - 30 and fourth dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 26-11-2011 vide Ex. P - 4. Port - mortem on the body of deceased was performed by Dr. Tarun Kumar (PW - 16) who noticed 100% burns and opined that cause of death was shock due to septicaemia by extensive burn. After investigation, charge - sheet under S.498A, S.307, S.304B, S.34 of the was filed against the accused persons, however, the charge under S.304 - B of , in alternative under S.302/34 of was framed against the accused persons by the trial Court.

3. To substantiate the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. When the accused persons were questioned under S.313, Cr. P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances, they denied the same and pleaded that they are innocent.

4. Upon consideration of evidence, the trial Court while acquitting Kamlesh Dixit (father - in - law); Sudhir Dixit (husband); Vimal Dixit (brother - in - law) from the charge, convicted and sentenced the present appellant as described above.

5. During the pendency of this criminal appeal, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, two more witnesses i.e. Head Constable Premlal Chandra and Dr. D. N. Pujari have been examined as PW - 19 and PW - 20 respectively by the trial Court. These witnesses have proved the dying declarations of Ex. P - 28 and Ex. P - 30 recorded by them.

6. Counsel for the accused / appellant submits that;
In the three dying declarations (Exs. P - 21, P - 28 and P - 30) of the deceased recorded on 24-11-2011, it has come that the deceased died accidental death and therefore recording to fourth dying declaration (Ex. D - 4) on 26-11-2011 becomes doubtful and it shows that the appellant has been falsely implicated in crime in question.
Evidence of Sandhya Dubey (PW - 12) and Virendra Dubey (PW - 15), being the relatives of deceased, cannot be relied upon by the Court.
Rishabh Dubey (PW - 10) and Kishan Dubey (PW - 11), brothers of the