Consistent dying declarations by the victim and corroborative witness testimonies are sufficient for conviction under IPC Sections 498A and 302, despite minor discrepancies.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard Smt.Sohani Holla, learned counsel, appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, ' IPC ') and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.25,000/-.

3. The prosecution case before the trial Court was that the deceased, Parvathi, was married to the accused two years prior to the incident. It was alleged that she had suffered paralysis in both legs and that the accused was harassing her with the intention of contracting a second marriage. On this ground, it was alleged that the accused subjected Parvathi to mental cruelty, thereby attracting the offence under Section 498A IPC .

4. It was further the specific case of the prosecution that on 16.02.2015, while the accused and the deceased were residing in the house of CW-3 Swamyshetty at Doddabagathavalli Village, the accused, at about 5:00 a.m., intentionally poured kerosene on Parvathi, set her on fire with the intention to kill her, and fled from the spot. Although she was admitted to the Government Hospital, Hassan, she succumbed to the burn injuries on 01.03.2015 at about 12:30 p.m. At the first instance, the police registered the case based on the statement of the injured victim for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC . Subsequently, upon her death, the offence punishable under Section 302 was invoked. After investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and charge sheet was filed.

5. The accused was secured before the Court; he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Consequently, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and relied upon Ex.P1 to P15 and material objects MO.1 to MO.5. The statement of the accused was recorded as contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CR.P.C'); however, he did not lead any defence evidence.

6. The trial Court mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1, the sister of the accused; PW2, the father of the deceased; PW3, the brother-in-law of the deceased; and PW4, the son of PW1 and PW3. The Court also considered the evidence of PW9, the Tahsildar, who recorded the statement of the injured at the first instance, and PW10, the Assistant Sub-Inspector, who, upon receiving information from the Government Hospital, Hassan, rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured between 2:45 p.m. and 3:45 p.m. Further, reliance was placed on the evidence of PW13, the doctor in whose presence the statement of the injured was recorded. Since the injured had given statement as per Ex.P13, which was treated as dying declaration, the trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him accordingly.

7. The learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Though the prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW1 to PW13, the evidence of PW1, PW3, and PW4, who are family members, is inconsistent and unreliable. It was argued that there are serious contradictions regarding the timing of the incident, as one witness stated that the incident occurred at 4:00 p.m., while another stated that it occurred at 5:00 a.m. It was further contended that even the alleged dying declarations are inconsistent with each other and do not corroborate the oral evidence. Therefore, it was submitted that the prose