Dying declarations can serve as sole basis for conviction if deemed reliable, conscious, and voluntary.

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

1. Heard Sri Shaikh Saoud, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent-State.

2. This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “ IPC ”), sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and also for the offence punishable under Section 304B of , sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the wife of the accused and both of them were married on 27.08.2016 at Mysuru and on 05.07.2017 at 03.00 p.m., in the house of the accused, he asked her to get meals from the hotel. When she refused, the accused abused her in filthy language and humiliated her and then poured kerosene and set her on fire and as a result she sustained burn injuries and immediately the neighbours i.e., PW2 and PW3 shifted the injured to the hospital in an ambulance and after getting the intimation from the hospital, Smt.Indiramma, WHC- 482 went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured and registered the case in Crime No.69 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 and 504 of IPC and subsequent to her death invoked the offences under Sections 304B and 302 of .

4. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet and the accused was secured before the Trial Court and the Court took cognizance and thereafter framed the charges. The accused did not plead guilty and hence, the prosecution examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.15 to substantiate the case and also marked documents Exs.P1 to P37 and also MO.1 to MO.7. On closure of the evidence of prosecution case, recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and accused did not choose to lead any evidence. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the above offences. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant in his argument that the prosecution though relies upon the prosecution witnesses and witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the neighbours who have not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. The P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. The counsel would vehemently contend that the prosecution mainly relies upon the document of Ex.P.29 - dying declaration. Having considered Ex.P.29, there is no any such endorsement by the Doctor that she was competent to make the statement. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that dying declaration was recorded by P.W.12 and her evidence also not inspires the confidence of the Court. The counsel would submits that it is the specific defence of the accused/appellant that when he comes to know about the incident, immediately he rushed to the house and he only broke open the door and tried to extinguish the fire. The counsel would contend that the said defence is not accepted by the Trial Court and the Trial Court fails to take note of the fact that he had also suffered the burn injuries when he tried to save the life of his wife. The counsel would contend when the DVD is placed before the Court and no certificate under Section 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act is produced and no any ash value whether it is tampered or not. The counsel would contend that the evidence of P.W.11 before the