The court established that a conviction cannot solely rely on a dying declaration without corroborating evidence.

JUDGMENT :

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

This criminal appeal has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the Mahila Fast Track Court, Nagercoil, in S.C.No.91 of 2016 dated 16.03.2023 wherein, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the following manner:

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a love affair between the deceased and the accused person. The family of the deceased came to know of the same and hence, she broke the relationship with the accused. However, the accused person is said to have continued to pursue her and the deceased started avoiding him. On 25.05.2013, at about 2:00 PM, the accused is said to have come to the house of the deceased with 2 litres of diesel in a plastic container and poured the same on the deceased and set her on fire. The deceased sustained grave burn injuries.

3. Immediately after the incident, PW1, who is the aunt of the deceased and PW3, who is the brother of the deceased and others took the deceased to the private hospital and PW7 doctor treated her.

4. The deceased is said to have informed the doctor that the accused person had poured the diesel and set her on fire. Since the deceased had sustained more than 90% burn injuries, word was sent to the Judicial Magistrate with a request to record the dying declaration.

5. PW13, who is the Judicial Magistrate, came to the hospital at about 05:45 PM and started recording the dying declaration (Ex. P11).

6. The police were also informed about the incident and PW11, who is the Special Sub-Inspector, came to the hospital around 3:00 PM and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex. P.11. This resulted in the registration of the FIR (Ex.P12) for offence under Section 307 of IPC.

7. Investigation was taken over by PW12 and when the investigation officer went to the hospital, the deceased was in an unconscious state and therefore he was not able to record any statement. Therefore, the investigation officer went the next day on 25.05.2013 and recorded her statement (Ex. P20).

8. The investigation officer went to the scene of crime and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex. P10) and the rough sketch (Ex.P14). He also collected MO2 from the scene of crime under Ex.P4.

9. The accused person was arrested in the course of investigation on 26.05.2013 and based on his confession, the two-wheeler used by him was seized (MO1). The accused person was remanded to judicial custody.

10. On 29.05.2013, the deceased died and hence, an alteration report (Ex.P15) was prepared and the offence was altered from Section 307 of IPC to Section 302 of IPC.

11. The investigation officer went to the Government Hospital on 30.05.2013 and conducted the inquest in the presence of panchayathars and prepared the inquest report (Ex. P16).

12. The investigation was thereafter taken over by PW14 and he sent the body for autopsy. PW5 doctor conducted the autopsy and issued the postmortem certificate (Ex.P1). The following injuries were noted in the postmortem certificate:

“Infected epidermo-dermal burns seen all over the body except face and part of soles of feet. Peeling and blackening of the skin seen over the burn area in a scattered manner. Singeing of scalp hair, eyebrows, eyelashes, axillary and pubic hair noted. The base of the burnt area is red in colour and at many places it is covered with infected pus materials. Nil genital injuries.”

13. As per the final opinion (Ex.P2), th