Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the husband’s murder conviction based on a natural and credible dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate and corroborative testimony. The victim was fit to make the statement despite severe burns. Relatives had reached the hospital but were excluded when it was recorded; their presence elsewhere did not establish tutoring. The prosecution evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the concurrent findings warranted no interference.
Issues
- Whether relatives’ presence at the hospital rendered the dying declaration tutored or unreliable.
- Whether the evidence sustained the murder conviction.
Held
- The Magistrate recorded the victim’s clear account that the accused poured kerosene and ignited her. The record established her fitness and that relatives were absent during recording. (¶ 13-14)
- It was natural for relatives to reach the hospital after the incident. Their presence there alone did not undermine the declaration, which was corroborated by prosecution witnesses and accepted as reliable on the evidence. (¶ 14-16)
- The combined evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; no error warranting interference with the concurrent conviction and sentence was shown. (¶ 16-17)
Result
Criminal appeal dismissed; murder conviction and sentence upheld.