A dying declaration, when certified by a medical professional as being made in a fit state of mind, is highly reliable. When corroborated by consistent eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, it justifies reversing an acquittal that was based on minor, immaterial discrepancies in witness statements.

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. The appellant - Subramani and the deceased Chennamma were husband and wife. They were married for seventeen years before the date of the incident. They had two daughters and two sons. The eldest daughter was aged about sixteen years at the Signature Not Verified GEETA AHUJA Date: 2026.03.17 relevant time. They had lived a happy married life for about

17:00:36 IST Reason:

three years. Thereafter, their relations became strained, and it is alleged that the appellant started ill-treating the deceased and kept on raising demands for money, which the father of the deceased fulfilled most of the time. The appellant had even started treating her with cruelty.

2. On the night of 20.07.2000, the appellant and the deceased as usual again picked up a quarrel. The appellant, in anger, went out and fetched some kerosene. The kerosene was poured on the deceased in a bathroom, the appellant lit a candle and threw it upon her, causing serious burn injuries. The appellant, after burning her, left the house. On the alarm raised by the deceased, the neighbours came and tried to save her. They doused the fire by pouring water. The deceased was taken to the Victoria Hospital by the neighbours and the mother of the appellant. She was admitted at around midnight and died after three days on 24.07.2000 in the hospital due to severe burn injuries received by her.

3. An FIR No. 194 of 2000 under Section 302 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code¹ was lodged by the father of the deceased

For short, ‘IPC’

on 24.07.2000 after she had died. The police inspector Shiva Murthy, upon investigation submitted a chargesheet against the appellant for committing offences punishable under Section

498A and 302 IPC.

4. The appellant was put to trial. The Trial Court acquitted him primarily on the ground that the bathroom where the incident took place was very small where two persons could not have been accommodated. The testimonies of the family witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable. The medical evidence suggested that deceased had received more than 80 to 90 percent burn injuries and as such she may not be in a mental state to depose or state anything either to the doctor or the police. The dying declaration, if any, was therefore unreliable.

5. On an appeal by the State to the High Court, the Division Bench reversed the judgment and order of the Trial Court. The acquittal was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under both the above provisions. He was sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default in payment of the same, with a further three months of simple imprisonment under Section 498A. He was also convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing the deceased and was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default, to undergo a further one month of simple imprisonment.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred a Criminal Appeal under Section 379 of Cr.P.C which was admitted on 13.12.2010 after the delay in filing the same was condoned. Thus, the appeal is before us for consideration as to whether the appellant is guilty of the offences under Section 302 and 498A of IPC and whether the sentence awarded to him is justified.

7. We have heard Shri Shekhar G. Devasa, learned senior counsel for the appellant-Subramani and Shri Sanchit Garga, Advocate on record for the respondent-State of