A dying declaration serves as a valid sole basis for conviction if it is truthful and voluntary; the requirement of medical certification is a rule of prudence rather than a mandatory condition, provided the recorder is satisfied of the declarant's mental fitness.

JUDGMENT :

R. T. VACHHANI, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2013 passed by the learned 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No.15 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the appellant–accused has been sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to undergo one month RI, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1 As per the case of the prosecution, the present appellant – accused on 14/08/2011 at about 12:00 hours in the noon since intended to get marry deceased – Pushpaben with some other to which the deceased denied to do so and therefore by keeping grudge over the said dispute, went to the Saket Estate, Moraiya where the complainant – husband of the deceased was present and made altercation with the deceased and therefore deceased went to the second floor where after following her informed the deceased that if she will not accompany him then he will kill her and thereafter after pouring kerosene set her ablaze with match-stick and ran away from the spot and thus the deceased was died due to the said burn injuries on 18/08/2011.

2.2 Accordingly, FIR being CR No.109 of 2011 came to be registered with Changodar Police Station. The Police after investigation charge-sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences before the learned JMFC, Court. However, as the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try offence under Section 302 IPC, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the learned Sessions Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent-accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided under Section 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondents-accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false and further stated that he is innocent and a false case has been filed against him. After examining the evidence, witness testimonies and submissions from both sides, the learned Sessions Court recorded the finding convicting the appellant-accused.

3. We have heard Mr.Jigar K Mehta, learned Advocate for the appellant – convict and Ms.Vrunda Shah learned APP for the respondent-State and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced before the learned Sessions Court concerned.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta appearing for the appellant– accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt and therefore, learned Sessions Court has erred in convicting the appellant – accused. He would submit that recording of dying declaration of the deceased suffers from grave procedural irregularities and prima facie it is unreliable to believe the said piece of evidence. He would submit that no such procedural aspect has been properly followed while recording of the dying declaration to show that whether the deceased was in fit state of mind or not to record her dying declaration.

4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant would further submit that as such no investigation has been conducted to prove the cla