The court affirmed that a dying declaration can be sufficient for conviction if it is found to be voluntary and made in a fit state of mind, even without corroboration.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction made by the learned Mahalir Fast Track / 2nd Additional Sessions Judge of Erode in S.C.No. 46 of 2017 dated 15.05.2018.

2. The respondent police registered the case against the appellant in Crime No.66 of 2015 for offence under S.174 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, laid charge sheet before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. He has taken the charge sheet on file in P.R.C.No.8 of 2017. After completing the formalities u/s.207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, to proceed with the case u/s.209 Cr.P.C. Since the offence is exclusively triable by the court of Session, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, taken the case on file in S.C.No.46 of 2017 and made over the case to the Mahila Court, Erode.

3. The learned Special Judge, after completing the formalities framed the charge against the appellant for offence under S.306 IPC. After framing charge, during trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked 23 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 and no Material Object was marked. After completing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant and questioned under S.313 Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

4. On completion of trial, after hearing of the arguments advanced on either side and considering the materials on record, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under S.306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant / accused has preferred the present appeal before this court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is a delay in registering FIR and the delay is inordinate delay and the same has not been properly explained. The alleged dying declaration was said to be obtained by the Judicial Magistrate on 07.01.2015 at about 10.40 p.m., and the conviction is made solely based on the alleged dying declaration of the deceased is unsustainable in the eye of law. The brother of the deceased was examined as P.W.13 who deposed that the deceased was able to speak on 09.01.2015 at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. Therefore, the statement allegedly said to have recorded by P.W.14 by Special Sub Inspector on 07.01.2015 create reasonable doubt over the case of the prosecution. The deceased was alleged to have suffered 90% burn injuries and did not even put thumb impression and the alleged endorsement by left toe ought not to have relied on by the trial court. The R.D.O., who conducted the enquiry was examined as P.W.5 and as per her report, there was no dowry harassment. Even the statement of the deceased taken on its entirety does not contemplate offence under S.306 IPC. Therefore, the order of conviction of the learned Special Judge, is liable to be set aside.

6. Even as per the prosecution, the appellant dowsed the fire over the deceased and she was immediately taken to hospital, therefore, the incident of instigation of committing suicide does not arise. Even after death of the deceased, FIR dated 30.01.2015 is stated to have registered based on the alleged statement made by the deceased on 07.01.2015 and it was only under S