A dying declaration, when determined to be voluntary and free from tutoring, serves as a reliable evidentiary basis for conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, even if minor testimonial discrepancies exist in the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment dated 24.02.2006 passed in S.C.No.201 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, thereby convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused married the deceased and their marriage was a love marriage. Thereafter, they did not have any issues. While being so, the second and third accused, being the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, demanded dowry through the first accused on the ground that no expenses were incurred for the marriage, as it was a love marriage. Consequently, all the accused frequently picked quarrels with the deceased and ill-treated her. Further, they demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and threatened that she would not be permitted to live with her husband/A1, if she failed to get the said amount. Thus, all the accused caused both mental and physical cruelty on the deceased. While being so, on 02.05.2002 at about 04.30 p.m., in continuation of the above harassment, the first accused, with the intention of causing death, poured kerosene all over her body and set her on fire. As a result, she sustained severe burn injuries. Immediately, she was taken to the hospital for treatment, however, she succumbed to the injuries on 09.05.2002.

3. Based on the complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.401 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No.201 of 2004.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

5. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the first accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo five months of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Further, he was sentenced to undergo twelve months of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-, in default to undergo two months of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that the Trial Court disbelieved the dying declaration only on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. Despite such disbelief, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In fact, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an inquest and submitted a report, which was marked as Ex.P8, wherein it was concluded that there was no demand for dowry and that the cause of death was not dowry demand. When the Trial Court disbelieved the dying declaration, there is absolutely no evidence to convict the accused for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Further, the the report of Revenue Divisional Officer also