JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Mahila Court at Chengalpet in S.C.No.195 of 2009 vide judgment dated 22.08.2014.) 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Mahila Court at Chengalpattu in S.C.No.195 of 2009, dated 22.08.2014, convicting and sentencing the appellant in the following manner: S.No Conviction for offence under Sentence/Punishment 1 Section 306 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2 Section 498-A IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 married the deceased Revathi in the year 2008 and was residing with her at Chrompet, Chennai. A2 and A3 are the father and mother of A1. The further case of the prosecution is that A1 to A3 had demanded dowry from the deceased and she was subjected to cruelty and as a result, on 03.06.2008 at about 10 a.m., the deceased Revathi committed self immolation. She was immediately rushed to the Kilpauk Government Medical College and Hospital by PW2. PW6, who was the Doctor gave treatment to the deceased and found that the deceased had suffered 90% burns. The entries made by PW6 in the Accident Register was marked as Ex.P3. Al was also treated by PW6 for the burn injuries sustained by him in his hands and the entries made in the Accident Register was marked as Ex.P4. 3. PW6 thereafter, had sent information to PW8, who was the Sub Inspector of Police at Chrompet Police Station at about 11 a.m. He came over to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased which was marked as Ex.P6. While recording the statement, PW8 gave a certificate to the effect that the deceased was conscious to give such a statement and the same was marked as Ex.P7. 4. PW8 thereafter, gave intimation to the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore for recording the dying declaration. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate, who was examined as PW4 got the necessary certificate from PW5 to the effect that the deceased was in conscious state to give the dying declaration. 4. PW8 thereafter, gave intimation to the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore for recording the dying declaration. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate, who was examined as PW4 got the necessary certificate from PW5 to the effect that the deceased was in conscious state to give the dying declaration. Thereafter, PW4 proceeded to record the dyeing declaration and it was read over to the deceased and her left hand thumb impression was also obtained in the dying declaration. The same was marked as Ex.P2 and the statement given by the deceased is extracted hereunder: 5. PW12, who was the Inspector of Police on receipt of the statement recorded by PW8 from the deceased, registered an FIR in Crime No.256 of 2008 under Section 174(3) of Cr.P.C., and the FIR was marked as Ex.P12. In the meantime, the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on 03.06.2008 at about 4.30 p.m. 6. The investigation was taken over by PW13 and he went to the house of the deceased on 03.06.2008 at about 8 p.m. and prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P13 and Rough Sketch Ex.P14. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses and Doctors under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. The matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, since the death had taken place under suspicious circumstances and the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an inquiry. He did the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and the same was marked as Ex.P8. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses which was marked as Ex.P9 series. He ultimately, gave his report which was marked as Ex.P10 and he opined in the said report that the deceased had died only due to demand for dowry and the cruelty that was meted against her. The above documents were collected by PW13 in the course of his investigation and the statement of the Revenue Divisional Officer was also recorded. 7. PW13 thereafter prepared an Alteration Report, which was marked as Ex.P16 and the offence was altered to 306, 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC. The accused persons were arrested on 05.06.2008 at about 7.00 p.m. and they were produced in the Court and remanded to judicial custody. PW13 thereafter collected the medical and scientific reports and filed the final report on 15.07.2008, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. 8. The accused persons were arrested on 05.06.2008 at about 7.00 p.m. and they were produced in the Court and remanded to judicial custody. PW13 thereafter collected the medical and scientific reports and filed the final report on 15.07.2008, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. 8. The learned Judicial Magistrate served the copies to the accused persons under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and the case was committed and made over to the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu. 9. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306 and 304 (B) of IPC. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and marked Exs.P1 to P16. The incriminating evidence that was collected during the course of trial was put to the accused persons and they denied the same as false. 10. The trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubts as against A1 for offence under Sections 306 and 498(A) of IPC. Al was acquitted from the charge under Section 304(B) of IPC. Insofar as A2 and A3 are concerned, they were acquitted from all the charges. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed before this Court by A1. 11. Heard Mr.S.Xavier Felix, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of the dying declaration of the deceased without any material corroboration. The learned counsel submitted that the dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration, more particularly, where it suffers from infirmity. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments: a)Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 2 LW (Crl) 814 b)Surinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2012 1 MLJ (Crl) 356 13. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there were totally three dying declarations in this case. The first dying declaration is said to have been recorded by PW6 and except the statement of PW6, no material was filed. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there were totally three dying declarations in this case. The first dying declaration is said to have been recorded by PW6 and except the statement of PW6, no material was filed. The second dying declaration was recorded by PW8 and the relevant document was not even filed with the final report and it was straight away marked in the Court as Ex.P6. The third dying declaration was the one which was recorded by PW4 and which was marked as Ex.P2. In the light of multiple dying declarations, it was contended that the Court below ought to have looked for corroboration before convicting the appellant. 14. The learned counsel for appellant also pointed out to the fact that the FIR was registered on 03.06.2008 at 07.30 p.m. and whereas, it reached the Court only on 06.06.2008 at about 04.30 p.m. and there was absolutely no explanation for this delay. The same will give rise to suspicion. It was further contended that there was no evidence to prove that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty and hence, the Court below ought not to have punished the appellant under section 306 of IPC. 15. Per Contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the deceased in all the dying declarations has clearly pointed out to the fact that A1 was treating the deceased with cruelty and went to the extent of saying that only if the deceased died, he can marry once again. This evidence by way of dying declaration was unassailable and hence, the Court below had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the same. 16. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 17. The main witnesses in this case viz., PW1 and PW2, who are the parents of the deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution and they were treated as hostile witnesses. Similarly, PW3, who was a neighbour also turned hostile. Hence, what is available before the Court by way of evidence is the dying declaration, the evidence of the Doctors and the evidence of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted the inquiry and filed his report. 18. Similarly, PW3, who was a neighbour also turned hostile. Hence, what is available before the Court by way of evidence is the dying declaration, the evidence of the Doctors and the evidence of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted the inquiry and filed his report. 18. PW6 was the Doctor, who had given treatment to the deceased when she was brought to the Government Hospital on 03.06.2008 at about 12.45 noon. This Doctor states in his evidence as follows: 19. PW6 found that the deceased had suffered almost 90% burns and he also recorded the burns suffered by the deceased in the Accident Register. The very same Doctor, also gave treatment to A1, who had also suffered burn injuries in his hands and he has stated to the Doctor that he suffered those burn injuries when he attempted to save the deceased. The entry made in the Accident Register for the injuries suffered by the appellant has been marked as Ex.P4. 20. The Doctor who was examined as PW6 is a neutral witness who has no axe to grind against the appellant. He found the deceased in a conscious state of mind. There is absolutely no reason to discard the evidence of the Doctor. Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes the dying declaration as a relevant fact and even a oral evidence as to the statement made by the injured person, who happens to die subsequently would prove the declaration. Therefore, it is not necessary that the dying declaration must always be in writing. In view of the same, the oral dying declaration given by the deceased to PW6 can be taken to be the first dying declaration. 21. PW6 after giving treatment to the deceased and the appellant, passed on the information to the police and PW8 came to the hospital and he is said to have recorded a statement in the nature of dying declaration. This was marked as Ex.P6. Unfortunately, this document was not filed along with the final report and a copy was not furnished to the accused. This document came to be marked straight away during the examination of PW8. 22. The Court below while appreciating this document came to a conclusion that it was a mistake on the part of the police in not filing this statement. This document came to be marked straight away during the examination of PW8. 22. The Court below while appreciating this document came to a conclusion that it was a mistake on the part of the police in not filing this statement. The Court below has taken into consideration the evidence of PW10, who was the Doctor, who had certified that the deceased was in a conscious state of mind and thereafter, in the presence of this Doctor, the statement was recorded by PW8 which is in the nature of a dying declaration. On going through Ex.P6, it can be seen that the deceased has once again spoken about the cruelty that was meted out by her husband. The Court below did not rely upon this document as against A2 and A3, since the last portion of this document was found damaged. 23. PW8 thereafter took steps to send the information to the Magistrate to record the dying declaration and accordingly, PW4, who was the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased which was marked as Ex.P2. Before recording the dying declaration, PW5, who was the Doctor certified that the deceased was in a conscious state of mind and thereafter, the dying declaration was recorded by PW4. The contents of the dying declaration has already been extracted supra. 24. It is now a settled law that if a dying declaration is found reliable, conviction can be sustained on its basis alone without any need for corroboration. Useful reference can be made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gurusamy vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Ettayapuram Police Station reported in 2019 2 LW Crl 556. 25. Insofar as the multiple dying declarations are concerned, if the statements are consistent throughout, then a conviction can be sustained on the basis of the dying declaration without looking for a corroboration. However, if there are inconsistencies, it will be more safer for the Court to look for corroboration and the Court must also see how material those inconsistencies are. The Apex Court revisited the entire law on dying declarations/multiple dying declarations in Jagbir Singh vs. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) reported in 2019 4 MLJ Crl 95. 26. However, if there are inconsistencies, it will be more safer for the Court to look for corroboration and the Court must also see how material those inconsistencies are. The Apex Court revisited the entire law on dying declarations/multiple dying declarations in Jagbir Singh vs. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) reported in 2019 4 MLJ Crl 95. 26. In the instant case, there are three dying declarations and all these dying declarations were recorded after ascertaining the mental status of the deceased to give a statement by due certification given by the Doctor. The dying declarations that were given to PW6, PW8 and PW4, are consistent insofar as the allegation made as against the appellant (A1). In view of the same, this Court is not in agreement with the contentions putforth by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court should have acted upon the dying declarations only after looking for a corroboration. 27. In the instant case, it is quite unfortunate that the parents of the deceased became hostile. When PW11 conducted the inquiry, he recorded the statements of the witnesses which was marked as Ex.P9 series. At that point of time, PW2, who is the mother of the deceased has clearly spoken about the cruelty that was meted out by A1. The Court below did not rely upon the dying declarations insofar as the A2 and A3 are concerned, since they were not living along with A1 and A1 and the deceased were living separately. On carefully going through the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, marked as Ex.P10, it is seen that there was a big controversy even when the appellant married the deceased. The deceased was having a relationship with the appellant before marriage and she conceived and thereafter, the appellant refused to marry her. The matter reached the police station and only thereafter, the appellant married the deceased. The marriage took place around April 2008 and the deceased committed suicide on 03.06.2008 and during the interregnum period, she was subjected to cruelty by the appellant. The same is apparent from the dying declaration as well as the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, PW11. In view of the same, the presumption under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act also comes into play. 28. The same is apparent from the dying declaration as well as the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, PW11. In view of the same, the presumption under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act also comes into play. 28. In the considered view of this Court, the trial Judge has carefully assessed the evidence and has come to the correct conclusion that the offence under Sections 498(a) and 306 of IPC has been made out against the appellant. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with this findings. 29. The delay in the FIR reaching the Court, is not fatal in all cases. In the present case, the delay does not in any way discredit the reliable evidence available on record and hence, the ground of delay that was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is also not sustainable. 30. In the result, the judgment and order of Mahila Court at Chengalpattu made in S.C.No.195 of 2009, dated 22.08.2014 is hereby sustained and this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The appellant was enlarged on bail by an order dated 09.04.2015, pending the appeal vide M.P.No.1 of 2014 in Crl.A.No.454 of 2014. Since this criminal appeal is dismissed, the appellant is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court, within a period of two weeks from today to undergo the remaining sentence. If the appellant does not surrender as directed by this Court, the Trial Court shall take immediate steps to secure the appellant and send him to jail to undergo the balance period of sentence.