Reliable dying declaration corroborated by immediate oral statements and FIR sustains conviction for murder.

The Appellant, Kaleem, was accused of setting Najma on fire on 06.11.2013 due to a monetary dispute involving ₹2,000.

The victim’s brother (PW-2) and husband (PW-3) arrived at the scene and extinguished the flames; the victim told them the Appellant committed the act.

An Executive Magistrate recorded the victim’s dying declaration at the hospital, where she clearly implicated "Kaleem Punjabi".

Najma succumbed to severe burn injuries the following day.

The Trial Court (Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa) convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The Appellant challenged the conviction, claiming false implication and arguing that "Kaleem Punjabi" referred to another individual.

1. Whether the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate was reliable and could form the sole basis of conviction.

2. Whether the identity of the accused as "Kaleem Punjabi" in the dying declaration created reasonable doubt regarding the Appellant's involvement.

3. Whether a prosecution witness, having already testified and been discharged, can be re-examined as a defense witness.

The Court primarily applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code regarding murder.

It relied on the precedent of Purshottam Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 11 SCC 489, which establishes that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction without corroboration if it is voluntary, inspires confidence, and the declarant was in a fit state of mind.

Regarding witness procedure, the Court applied the principle from State of M.P. v. Badri Yadav (2006) 9 SCC 549, which prohibits prosecution witnesses from being juxtaposed as defense witnesses to resile from their earlier testimony, as it defeats the ends of justice.

The Court found the dying declaration (Ex. P-16) to be credible and voluntary, supported by the testimony of the Medical Officer (PW-11) who certified the victim's fitness to make a statement.

The Court rejected the defense's identity argument, noting that the Appellant was explicitly named in the prompt FIR (Ex. P-3) and spot map (Ex. P-4), and that the defense failed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses regarding the existence of another "Kaleem Punjabi".

Furthermore, the Court disregarded the testimony of Salim (DW-3), who was previously examined as PW-3, ruling that and his subsequent contradictory statement as a defense witness was a concocted afterthought aimed at perjuring himself, in violation of the procedural principles established in Badri Yadav.

The medical evidence (PW-13) confirmed death by burn shock, corroborating the prosecution's narrative.

It held that the procedural attempt to re-examine a prosecution witness as a defense witness was impermissible.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment and fine.