Oral dying declaration and medical corroboration can sustain a murder case; alibi requires strict proof to displace presence.

An oral dying declaration can support a murder conviction if it is voluntary, truthful, made in a conscious state of mind, and finds corroboration in reliable medical and forensic evidence. Here, the deceased suffered extensive burn injuries, and the medical findings were treated as consistent with homicidal, not accidental, burns. The accused's plea of alibi was rejected because the burden lay on the defence to prove it with strict and convincing evidence, and the material did not establish physical impossibility of presence at the scene or create a reasonable doubt. The prosecution case was therefore treated as sufficiently established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained on the basis of the oral dying declaration and corroborative medical evidence; (ii) Whether the plea of alibi was proved so as to displace the finding of guilt.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained on the basis of the oral dying declaration and corroborative medical evidence.

Analysis: The deceased sustained 100% ante-mortem burn injuries, and the medical evidence, including the post-mortem and forensic findings, showed that the burns were not accidental. The brother's testimony that the deceased named the assailant immediately after the was accepted as an oral dying declaration. A dying declaration may be oral or written, but it must inspire confidence and be voluntary, truthful, and made in a conscious state of mind. The hostile testimony of the daughter did not displace the trustworthy evidence of the brother, and the medical evidence supported the prosecution version rather than contradicting it.

Conclusion: The oral dying declaration, supported by medical and forensic evidence, was rightly relied upon and the conviction was sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of alibi was proved so as to displace the finding of guilt.

Analysis: A plea of alibi is a rule of evidence and the burden lies on the accused to establish it with strict proof once the prosecution proves presence at the scene through reliable evidence. The father's testimony placed the accused at home at the relevant time, and the defence evidence was found to be sketchy and unconvincing. The accused failed to show physical impossibility of his presence at the place of occurrence or create a reasonable doubt about it.

Conclusion: The plea of alibi failed and the concurrent finding rejecting it was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The evidence sufficiently established the prosecution case, and the conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An oral dying declaration, if found credible and voluntary, can sustain a conviction when corroborated by reliable medical and forensic evidence, and a plea of alibi must be proved by strict and convincing evidence to exclude the accused's presence at the scene.

---