PW.3 came inside along with other neighbours–PW.5 to
PW8. The deceased was admitted to hospital. At the~”t«.i»n1e
of admission the accused had accompanied theQV..d’ecVe’a-s’ed”V.
and he gave history that the deceased tt)*d
set fire to herself.
3) The doctor sent §nt’inj”a..tionA”t’o_theThe
PSI came and recorded the statte~m.e’nt”‘0f theddecensed at
Ex.P.23. In the statement sne”ind.rc?;s accused set
fire to kill her he:ta:u*se of recai}s5o_’n._t11AVVfcit she does not
have good food. The
Taluq Exec’ut’i’tr.eV ‘TEM’) recorded
the dying. In Ex.P.l8 she has
jéiflflusdedddddddoused her with kerosene and ‘set
fire’for«.”the~-reas0.n=t’hat she does not go to work and earn
“money. “‘;§7hev«..’d’e’c’eased succumbed to the burn injuries on
_:’G’2.¥’1r,:2#2.rO_O4.”The accused charged for the offences
“Vis.:ws.u.4’s1es(A) and 302 we
0?
4) The postmortem report discioses that the death
is on account of burn injuries. The dying decfaration
recorded by the 1.0. and the TEM wouid
indicate that the accused caused her murder
fire. PW.3 mother of the deceased 1was_at; the”:sc–enevhias__Tf
turned hostile and do not s.up_port”‘._th’e
prosecution. The Trial Court ongdthe basislofiidying
declaration and postmortem :1’eport;_con*iiiet’ed the accused.
The accused is in appeal.
5) Curiae, for the
accused strei’.uTo’L1sIy the dying decfaration
is incredigbl-e, beica»use*t’he.i’mioitive for setting fire stated in
iiinconsistent. Before the TEM she
stateiS._thi’at. t’he”~.tacc:us’ed was insisting her to go for work
and ea1’nii”mon:ey’.”sin the statement recorded by the 1.0. she
.1 that she was disliked by the accused because of
ii’i’_”-hfcfbaid looks and she does not know cooking. The said
i”‘–V.inc’o1isistency would dent the veracity of the dying
in Ex.P.18 and weli Ex.P.23 the accused might I1_a__v
caused death by setting fire. The dying declarati0’n”s’wa”:ie7,
Credible. The order of Trial court in convi’?;.fir?.g.V:Vvtherhe H
accused on the basis of the dying :deHc’l’aratYj_ong «sorilarci
and proper. The appeal is dismissed.
The fees of Amicus Curiae’:i”s;,Vhfi-zgedh.ai«.V:R.a.5;U(“)()/-.
The State shali pay the fees-.zr0.t}”r.e
1
sd/~
JUDGE
ea];
C $8363