HYDERABAD: Dying declaration is an exception to hearsay evidence. The philosophy behind this is that no person in contemplation of death would like to meet his Maker with a lie on his lips. Unless the statement of the victim appears unnatural or the same comes into conflict with the ocular or circumstantial evidence, its credibility is generally accepted.
In a case before the Hyderabad High Court, the appellant accused challenged the judgment of the III Additional district and sessions judge (Fast track court), Ranga Reddy district in convicting and sentencing him to suffer rigorous life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 302 (punishment for murder) and 498-A IPC (husband subjecting his wife to cruelty).
The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused from Mahabubnagar married the victim in 2006 and came to Hyderabad. Accused used to consume liquor daily and quarrel with the deceased and used to harass her.
On the day of the incident, the deceased insisted him not to consume liquor and transfer his property in her favour resulting in quarrel between them. Fed up with the attitude of the deceased, the appellant decided to eliminate her and as part of it poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Later, he informed the mother-in-law over phone that the deceased set herself ablaze and fled away.
She was succumbed to burn injuries after two days. In her dying declaration before the concerned Magistrate, she said that on the day of the incident, her husband came home drunk; that when she questioned him as to why he was not giving any money towards family expenses, he poured kerosene and lit fire on her and that considering her tender aged children, she herself put out flames.
On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the accused-appellant guilty of causing death of the deceased, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the High Court. His counsel told the High Court bench that there were no witnesses, and that there are discrepancies between the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate and the statement of the deceased recorded by the head constable. On the other hand, the state public prosecutor submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the accused harassed the deceased and therefore, he was rightly convicted, he added.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record, the bench comprising Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy and Justice G Shyam Prasad said that it does not find any material discrepancy between the said statement and the dying declaration as regards to the alleged offender and the manner in which the offence took place. The bench, however, said that the conduct of the appellant-accused suggests that he did not have the premeditation of killing the deceased.
The intention which appeared to have sprouted up momentarily in the heat of passion. Moreover, nothing is brought on record by the prosecution that the appellant has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Therefore, the act committed by the appellant constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the bench opined.