https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299532 A dying declaration recorded by an Investigating Officer without adequate safeguards was treated as unsafe for sole reliance because it was not recorded by a Magistrate or doctor, lacked key formalities, and its authenticity was doubtful. Oral declarations were accepted only as limited corroborative material. On the facts, the defence theory of accidental fire was rejected; credible neighbour evidence, the burn circumstances, surrounding conduct, and proof of dowry-related harassment supported a finding of homicidal burning against two accused, while one accused received the benefit of doubt. The death penalty was not restored, and life imprisonment replaced it for the convicted respondents. en-us Mon, 23 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Dec 2021 14:33:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299532 A dying declaration recorded by an Investigating Officer without adequate safeguards was treated as unsafe for sole reliance because it was not recorded by a Magistrate or doctor, lacked key formalities, and its authenticity was doubtful. Oral declarations were accepted only as limited corroborative material. On the facts, the defence theory of accidental fire was rejected; credible neighbour evidence, the burn circumstances, surrounding conduct, and proof of dowry-related harassment supported a finding of homicidal burning against two accused, while one accused received the benefit of doubt. The death penalty was not restored, and life imprisonment replaced it for the convicted respondents. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299532