@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.@mdashThis is an appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated November 18, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sealdah, in Sessions Trial No. 1(12)04/Sessions Case No. 27(7)04 convicting the accused/appellant under sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused/petitioner to suffer imprisonment for life and with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was to suffer imprisonment for one year. In addition, he was, also, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. In default of payment of such fine, he was to suffer imprisonment for three months for commission of offence u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. Admittedly, the victim was the wife of the accused. The victim was staying at the relevant point of time in her mother''s house. The husband arrived at about 3 p.m. on February 24, 2004 in his in-laws place. The wife asked the husband to work for his earnings. He got annoyed. The husband and the wife were quarrelling. The husband poured kerosene on the body of the wife and set her on fire. The occurrence took place in his in laws place at about 4 p.m.
3. Some local people found that smoke was emitting from the room and they removed the tiles of the roof and rescued the victim. The victim was taken to R.G. Kar Medical College Hospital.
4. The attending physician recorded her dying declaration. She narrated the entire incident. She stated that she was tortured since the date of her marriage. She requested her husband to work, which was not accepted by the husband favorably. The husband/appellant poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire.
5. Mr. Subhasish Pachhal, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the dying declaration was recorded in presence of the mother of the victim. Mr. Pachhal, further, submits that the time of recording the dying declaration was not mentioned in the recording of the attending physician. Therefore, he submits that the dying declaration could not be the basis of the conviction. Mr. Pachhal proceeds that as the victim suffered 90% per centum burn injury, it was unlikely for her to make such statement.
6. The Supreme Court of India in the case of
7. In Munnu Raja and another versus the
8. In Ramawati Devi versus the
9. We, therefore, hold that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated inasmuch as the rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. A brief statement is sufficient.
10. Mere presence of the mother at the time of recording the dying declaration does not make it inadmissible when there is no material on record to show that the mother dictated the victim to give the dying declaration. There is no reason to disbelieve the attending physician, who recorded the dying declaration. The attending physician certified that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make such statement. After careful scrutiny, we are satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement. It is coherent and consistent. Therefore, there shall be no legal impediment to make the basis of conviction even if there is no corroboration.
11. There is no infirmity in the judgment and order of sentence impugned before us. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal.
12. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. Let the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the court below immediately.
Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.
I agree.
