- (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal in which prayer for bail pending appeal has been made is to the judgment and order of Addl Sessions Judge/FTC II Jaunpur in ST No 309 of 2009 whereby the Appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and also learned AGA for the State. We have also taken through the materials on record. The prosecution case is that on 13.4.2009 at 7.30 am, when the informant was on way back from the house of Village Pradhan to his house, he saw Appellant and others escaping from his house. When he came closer to his house, he saw his wife in flames and writhing in pain. He immediately took his wife to the hospital. However, she died on 14.4.2009 while undergoing treatment in hospital. The case was registered pursuant to the order of the court dated 8.6.2009 passed on application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC.
(3.) THE argument substantially is that the Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant only on the basis of dying declaration. It is further submitted that the FIR in this case was registered pursuant to order passed on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.PC after one month and 25 days of the occurrence. It is further submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses have propped up the prosecution case. Our attention has also been drawn to the dying declaration attended with the submission that existence of dying declaration is shrouded in mystery. It would appear from the record that the first informant did not mention about existence of any dying declaration in his application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. From a perusal of the dying declaration, it is not clear whether dying declaration was recorded by a Tahsildar in his own hand writing nor does it appear from the record whether any certificate of its having been recorded by him has been appended. It is further submitted that the witnesses have admitted that the dying declaration was recorded after a considerable delay.;