JUDGMENT Prem Prakash, J. 1. SARWAR (26) met with a gruesome death in the locality known as Imambara Chaoni within the municipal limits of Gonda. He died of burns received by him a little after midnight at 1 A. M. on 26th April. 11974. The occurrence in his receiving the fatal burn injuries took place in a small apartment which he had occupied in that locality having obtained it on rent form Nasimul Rahman (DW1), a few days before the occurrence. The kothri, in which the deceased, his wife, the appellant and his mother-in-law, Smt. Majida (since then died) had been living since a couple of days before was about four or five paces east-west and about four paces north-south. It was part of the house of Nasimul Rahman (DW1). Its exit was on the road, towards the east. This road joined the Faizabad road towards its south. Across the road towards the east were the houses of Ibrahim (PW 15) was adjacent to the kothri, towards the south. The kothri had door leaves in its exit and also there was a window facing east which was covered by iron bars. At a distance of SO or 60 paces was the house occupied by Yunus, the second-son-in- law of Majida, which was being occupied, also by the brother and the father of the appellant. The house of Ali Ullah (PW 10) was situate at a distance of 50 or 60 paces, to the north-west of the house of Nasimul Rahman and the house of Khalil (PW 12) was at a distance of 30 paces from the house of Nasimul Rahman. Outside his house at a distance of 10 paces was a neem tree from where the house of Nasimul Rahman was visible. There was admittedly no electric light in the kothri. The family living in the kothri in the fateful night consisted of the deceased, his wife, Smt. Akko, the appellant, and his mother-in-law Smt. Majida. Smt. Majida died on 21st May in the result of burn injuries she had received in the transaction in which Sarwar had received the burn injuries. 2. THE prosecution case against the accused-appellant was as follows : THE accused was married to Sarwar, son of Riyasat Khan of Gangawal, about five or six months before the incident. Smt. Majida died on 21st May in the result of burn injuries she had received in the transaction in which Sarwar had received the burn injuries. 2. THE prosecution case against the accused-appellant was as follows : THE accused was married to Sarwar, son of Riyasat Khan of Gangawal, about five or six months before the incident. After staying for a night in Gangawal the accused returned to her parents and did not go to live with him again, despite all efforts made by him and his relations. About a month before the occurrence at the instance of the kith and kin of the deceased a panchayat was convened at the house of Yunus. Majida was called for in the panchayat. The deceased and others, who were there in the panchayat, asked Majida to send the appellant to Gangawal, but Majida turned down the request on the ground that since there was no latrine in the house of the deceased and her daughter's living there was inconvenient and discomfortable, Sarwar should come and stay in Gonda and after the two had removed the misunderstanding, her daughter may go with him. Sarwar and his relations did not agree to it with the result that an amicable settlement could not be reached. Even thereafter the deceased, as told by Nasimul Rahman (DW1) used to visit the locality off and on to persuade him and others residing there to speak to Majida to send her daughter with him. A couple of days before the occurrence Sarwar arranged for the kothri and started living there with the accused and her mother. On the day of occurrence in the evening he had returned from Gonda where he had gone to collect things for their use. At about 12 or 1 A. M. when the deceased had already gone to bed and the appellant and her mother were resting on a cot beside him, those, who were living in the vicinity of the kothri, were attracted by the shouts of Sarwar The door had been locked from inside; they peeped through the window to find Sarwar in flames. They called him near the window and threw sand and dust through the window upon him in an attempt to put off the fire. Some of them broke open the door of the kothri to save Sarwar's life. They called him near the window and threw sand and dust through the window upon him in an attempt to put off the fire. Some of them broke open the door of the kothri to save Sarwar's life. As one of the door leaves was broken, the accused and her mother came out of the kothri and rushed to the nearby house of Yunus. Sarwar also went out the fire was extinguished. When he was on the road, he declared in the presence of Ali Ullah (PW 10), Khalil (PW 12) and Sattar (PW 13) besides others who had arrived at the scene of occurrence, that the appellant had burnt him. According to the prosecution, those, who were present on the spot, called the accused, her brother and parents from the house of Yunus and forced them to take Sarwar to the hospital where he was admitted in the Emergency Ward at 2.30 A. M. According to Dr M. S. Seth (PW 16), who treated and medically examined the deceased, Wasim Mohamad son of Halim Mohammad of Shashtri Nagar had identified the injured before him. Smt. Majida was also admitted in the Emergecy Ward along with Sarwar. Sarwar, however, expired sat 6.45 A.M. Soon thereafter on receipt of the information, Second Officer Ram Samujh Pandey (PW 9) reached the hospital at 10 A.M. ; he performed the iinquest on the dead body and sent it to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. The inquest report shows that on the right and left wrists were found marks of some thing being tied around them. Ali Ullah (PW 10) and Sattar (PW 13), who had reached the spot by the time the deceased came out side his kothri, had seen his hands being tied with a string. By the time the inquest was held, no information had been laid about the incident at the police station and it was left to Abdul Latif (PW 1), the cousin of the deceased, to deliver a written report of the occurrence at police station Kotwali on 27th April at 2 P.M. Abdul Latif had come with his master Laxmi Narain (PW 4) to purchase some accessories for the machine at about 1 A.M. He learnt in Chowk that a boy form Gangawal had been burnt to death in the locality known as Mohalla Imam- bara. Suspecting some foul play, he rushed to the place to make enquiries. He met Chunna Zahir and many others who had taken out burning Sarwar from inside the kothri, he learnt from them that when the door was broken open the appellant and her mother were standing aside in a corner in the kothri. The F.I.R, however, did not state that the declaration was made by the deceased in the presence of people drawn from the locality. They had informed to have heard that he had given some statement to the Doctor. 3. THE investigation of the case was taken up by Sub-Inspector Tribeni Prasad Varma (PW 17) who had received on 27th April at about 8 P. M. copies of the FIR and GD entry through constable Mohd. Shafiq. He rushed to the spot reaching there at 10 P.M., the same night. Being unable to proceed with the investigation for want of sufficient light, he commenced investigation the next day at 6 A VI. He interrogated Chunna, Zahir, Khalil, Nasimul Rahman and Ali Ullah. He went inside the kothri where the incident had occurred. A tarpaulin was found spread on the ground. Its corner was burnt. A half burnt pillow was lying on the tarpaulin. A smashed match-box with some match sticks ; a printed piece of cloth with burn marks ; a piece of sutli were found lying on the floor ; and a lamp was also found, the chimney of which was found on the almirah and the lower part containing a few drops of kerosene oil was lying on the ground. The Investigating Officer also noticed sufficient quantity of sand lying inside the kothri near the window. The broken door was found lying. Since the key of the lock was not available inspite of search, he got it removed by Mohammad Zahir (PW 14). The recovered articles were taken into possession and the memo (Ext. Ka-15) was prepared on the spot Thereafter, the site-plan was prepared. THE accused was arrested from the house of her father On 29th April he interrogated Addul Latif (PW 1), Mohammad Hanif (PW 6) and Ibrahim (PW 15). Smt. Zaibal (PW 7) was interrogated on 3rd May and Sattar(PW 13) on 6th May. After completing the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted. 4. THE accused was arrested from the house of her father On 29th April he interrogated Addul Latif (PW 1), Mohammad Hanif (PW 6) and Ibrahim (PW 15). Smt. Zaibal (PW 7) was interrogated on 3rd May and Sattar(PW 13) on 6th May. After completing the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted. 4. THE Investigating Officer stated that Zahir, Chunna and Nasimul Rahman were siding with the accused and were not prepared to state the truth. In those days Smt. Majida was serving at the residence or Nasimul Rahman, The Public Prosecutor gave an application on 19th September, 1974 that the aforesaid witnesses being under the influence of the accused be discharged from evidence. The defence counsel required the production of Nasimul Rahman in defence, but he did not make any submission for the examination of the rest of the witnesses. The accused abjured to her guilt. She admitted to have been married to Sarwar and having returned to her parents after staying for a night with her husband. She admitted that a Panchayat was held at her father's house which was attended by her mother, though she pleaded ignorance as to what the Panches had decided. Sarwar, according to her, had come to Gonda 10 days before the occurrence to attend the marriage of Rahmat's daughter. She did not deny to have been living with the deceased, along with her mother, in the kothri in that fateful night. Her version of the occurrence is, however, different. She alleged that after taking the meals Majida was lying on a cot outside the kothri whereas the deceased and she were inside the kothri- Sarwar told her that his parents had stopped giving him any help in cash or in kind ever since he started residing at Gonda. The appellant advised him to earn his own living by doing masonary work. Sarwar kept quiet. A little later he went out to urinate. He called Majida inside the kothri, locked the door, ana kept the key with himself. She and Majida went to bed on a cot and Sarwar lay down on the floor. At about 1 A. M. she woke up on the alarm raised by her mother and found that the clothes of Sarwar and her mother had caught fire. Sarwar was holding Majida and she was trying to rescue herself. She and Majida went to bed on a cot and Sarwar lay down on the floor. At about 1 A. M. she woke up on the alarm raised by her mother and found that the clothes of Sarwar and her mother had caught fire. Sarwar was holding Majida and she was trying to rescue herself. Feeling terrified she stood aside in a corner and started raising an alarm. Her shouts and those of Majida attracted several persons to the place. Calling Sarwar near the window they threw dust upon him to extinguish the fire and ultimately one of the door leaves was broken to facilitate their coming outside the kothri. She rushed to the house of Yunus and informed her father Ali Hasan. Shortly thereafter she returned with her parents and brother and all of them took Sarwar to the hospital where he expired. Her father sent Iqbal, her brother, to Gangawal to inform the relatives of sarwar about his death- She denied, in this manner, that to get rid of Sarwar she had set him on fire, sprinkling kerosene oil when he was asleep. She denied that on coming outside the kothri sarwar declared that 'she had burnt him'. She admitted that the lamp (Ext. 5) was there in the kothri in the fateful night. She stated that Sarwar had the match box (Ext. 1) with him as he was accustomed to smoke biri. On being questioned as to why the witnesses had deposed against her, she stated that Abdul Latif and Zaibul were closely related to the deceased and that they had procured the witnesses to give false evidence against her. 5. THROUGH the testimony of Nasimul Rahman (DW 1) and Mobin Uddin (DW 2) she led evidence in her endeavour to show that Sarwar was unable to speak when he was taken outside the kothri and that no such dying declaration as is ascribed by the prosecution was made by him disclosing the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Nasimul Rahman (DW 1) stated that when he reached there, the accused and her mother were raising alarm inside the kothri and when one of the leaves of the door was broken open, they came out and went to the house of Yunus. Nasimul Rahman (DW 1) stated that when he reached there, the accused and her mother were raising alarm inside the kothri and when one of the leaves of the door was broken open, they came out and went to the house of Yunus. He managed to send the injured to the hospital along with the accused and her relations We may note that no information whatsoever of the occurrence was lodged at the police station by any member of the family of the appellant either before Sarwar breathed his last or thereafter, although, as told by Khalil (PW12), who was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution, the deceased had acknowledged that he had burnt himself. We may also note that nothing was suggested to PW 1, the informant and cousin of the deceased, that the information of the occurrence had been sent to the parents of the deceased through Iqbal, the brother of the appellant. 6. ON the basis of the following (circumstances the trial court held that the appellant was the author of the crime : - (a) The accused had no love for her husband. When the deceased came to reside after having hired the kothri and her mother also started living there, the accused had no option but to submit to the wishes of the deceased. She could only get rid of him through homicide. (b) Although the accused was inside the Kothri throughout, her clothes were not burnt and she made no effort whatsoever to rescue her husband showing that she had no sympathy or love for him. If the accused had any intention to save Sarwar, she could easily pick up the key and unlock the door so as to take outside help in putting off the fire. At the time of search, several articles were recovered from the kothri, but the key was not traceable. (c) It was highly unnatural that Majida and the accused sleeping on the same cot, the former would get burnt and the accused may go scot free. (d) The accused being present throughout in the kothri, she did not speak a word as to how Sarwar met his death- whether it was a case of suicide ? (c) It was highly unnatural that Majida and the accused sleeping on the same cot, the former would get burnt and the accused may go scot free. (d) The accused being present throughout in the kothri, she did not speak a word as to how Sarwar met his death- whether it was a case of suicide ? (e) Alter the escape from the kothri the appellant and her mother did not stay there and instead they ran to the house of her father where they had been permanently residing. It was only when they were forced by some of the neighbours, who had gathered around the deceased, that her parents and brothers came and very reluctantly they took Sarwar to the hospital, for treatment. (f) Soon after coming outside the kothri, the deceased declared that 'the appellant had brunt him.' The fact that he was talking coherently was proved not only by Ali Ullah (PW 10), Sattar (PW 13) and Ibrahim (PW 15) but also it found corroboration from the own admission of the accused in reply to question No. 7 put to her wherein she admitted that on being taken out of the kothri Sarwar standing on the road was asking for water and that he ran towards the water reservoir to take water on the road. The three witnesses were the neighbours and there was no particular ill-will between them and the appellant which could give them a reason to depose falsely. (g) The defence witnesses were not only interested in saving the appellant but their evidence is militated by the probabilities of the case. They were not reliable to create dent in the chain of evidence furnished by the various circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused. Finding the accused-appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC she has been sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. 7. IT is well settled that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence the court will have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence the court will have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link in the claim may be fatal to the prosecution case. 8. WE may first examine the question whether the death of Sarwar was suicidal or accidental or homicidal. The prosecution undoubtedly cannot succeed unless it establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Sarwar met with homicidal death. Now there are certain circumstances in this case which are very eloquent and they clearly and unmistakably point to the conclusion that the death of Sarwar was a homicidal one. The evidence, oral as well as circumstantial, excludes the probability of suicide or accidental death. After the entreaties which covered a long period, the deceased had been able to persuade Smt. Majida to let her daughter live with him. Nasimul Rahman (DW 1), in whose employ Smt. Majida then happened to be, had agreed to give a portion of his house on rent to Sarwar which they had occupied a couple of days before the occurrence. Smt. Jaibul (PW 7), the mother of the deceased, who had made repeated attempts for reconciliation between her son and the appellant, had also agreed that her son may live in Gonda along with his wife and mother- in-law. Smt. Jaibul's husband was a tenure holder of about 15 bighas of land. It was not a family of impecunious means and it is in evidence of Smt. Jaibul that on the day of the occurrence Sarwar had taken food-grains, some money and other articles to Gonda for his use. She denied that she had told the deceased to have no concern with him because he was living separate with his wife. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that Sarwar would ever think of committing suicide. Moreover, according to the statement of the appellant, the only thing which the deceased had told her in that night was that his family members had not given him any thing to eat and upon that the appellant had told him to earn his livelihood by doing work. The deceased was a mason. Moreover, according to the statement of the appellant, the only thing which the deceased had told her in that night was that his family members had not given him any thing to eat and upon that the appellant had told him to earn his livelihood by doing work. The deceased was a mason. Having regained the company of his wife after so many attempts for reconciliation and there being nothing according to the appellant which happened that day to cause a strain in their relations, it is difficult to believe that Sarwar would think of committing suicide. According to the appellant, and it is the case of the prosecution, both Majida and the appellant were inside the kothri when the deceased was seen by the neighbour in flames inside the kothri. If Sarwar wanted to commit suicide, he would not have brought Smt. Majida from outside where, according to the appellant,, she was sleeping on a cot. The site off the burn injuries also negatives the possibility of suicide. If the deceased had poured kerosene oil upon himself, the entire back (?). The site of the burns is consistent with the only probability that kerosene oil was poured on him when he was lying down on the ground and this is confirmed by the circumstance that the half burnt pillow was found lying on the tarpaulin lying on the ground. The inquest report, which was proved by the Investigating Officer shows that marks of some thing being tied around both the wrists were there on the dead body. The two witnesses Ali Ullah (PW 10) and Sattar (PW 13) unequivocally stated that when Sarwar came out of the kothri in a burning condition, then they saw rope tied on both of his hands. Mujahid Ali (PW 11), who lives in that very locality and was present at the time of the search by the Investigating Officer on 28th April, states that when the Investigating Officer entered the scene of occurrence, he found amongst other things a string lying in a corner of the kothri and it measured about 3 cubits. The door had been locked from inside and since the key was not traceable, the Investigating Officer had got the lock broken up. If Sarwar had locked the door and kept the key with himself, it would have been found there in the kothri. The door had been locked from inside and since the key was not traceable, the Investigating Officer had got the lock broken up. If Sarwar had locked the door and kept the key with himself, it would have been found there in the kothri. In view of these circumstances, we can, therefore, safely rule out the possibility of suicide. The theory of accidental death can also be safely excluded. Khalil (PW 13), who had been permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution because he did not support the prosecution with respect to the declaration made by the deceased, acknowledged in his cross examination that the burnt clothes on the person of the deceased were stinking of kerosene oil and curiously enough this statement was not challenged in cross- examination by the accused. The recovery memo, to which reference has been made by us in the above, also mentioned that the chimney of the lamp was found placed on the almirah and the container with a few drops of kerosene oil is it was lying on the ground, with match-box lying near it. Now one fails to appreciate how could there be any smell of kerosene oil in the burnt clothes if the deceased accidentally got burnt while smoking biri. The presence of the kerosene oil lamp clearly excludes the possibility of accidental burning while trying to light the biri. That leaves only the last possibility, namely, homocidal death. 9. THERE is one more circumstance which clearly demonstrates that the death of Sarwar was homicidal. Admittedly, the appellant and her mother were Inside the kothri when Sarwar was burning in flames and people, who had collected from the neighbourhood, were throwing dust through the exit of the window in order to extinguish the fire. The door was found locked from inside. If, as told by the accused, Sarwar had locked the door with the key in his possession, the appellant and her mother would have attempted to open the lock when it was known that Sarwar had locked the door. After one of the door leaves was broken open, the evidence would have it the appellant and her mother went to the house of Yunus (the appellant's brother-in law) instead of taking care of Sarwar who was standing burning on the road, after having come out from inside the kothri. After one of the door leaves was broken open, the evidence would have it the appellant and her mother went to the house of Yunus (the appellant's brother-in law) instead of taking care of Sarwar who was standing burning on the road, after having come out from inside the kothri. Sattar (PW 13) has stated that it was with very great difficulty that the appellant and her parents were brought to the scene of occurrence. That statement, in our opinion, has a ring of truth because even Nasimul Rahman (OW 1) has stated that when he came out of his house the second time, about half an hour after, he asked the people collected there to go and call for members of Sarwar's family. The conduct on the part of a wife, who finds that her husband has been accidentally burnt, was strange. The wife would in such a case be anxious and she would welcome help from neighbours for the purpose of removing her husband immediately to the hospital for treatment. She would, in fact, herself seek the help of her neighbours for this purpose and not take shelter in the house of her parents to be called for only by the neighbours. This conduct of the appellant was highly inconsistent with the ordinary course of human conduct and incompatible with the hypothesis of accidental death. It is further significant to note that neither the appellant nor any one from her family went to the police station to lodge an information about the accidental death. It is apparent from their conduct that they were anxious that the incident in which Sarwar received burns should not be investigated lest the complicity of the appellant would be known soon. The prosecution declares that after persuations the appellant and her brothers took Sarwar to the hospital on a rickshaw but it is strange that by the time Sarwar was presented for treatment before Dr. M. S. Seth (PW 16), none from the family were there and it was Wasi Mohammad who identified the patient, admitted to the Emergency Ward. All these circumstances irresistably point to the conclusion that the appellant and her family members had something to hide and unless the death of Sarwar was homicidal death it is difficult to understand why the appellant should have behaved in a strange manner. All these circumstances irresistably point to the conclusion that the appellant and her family members had something to hide and unless the death of Sarwar was homicidal death it is difficult to understand why the appellant should have behaved in a strange manner. It is true that "no person accused of crime is bound to offer any explanation of his conduct or of circumstances of suspicion which attach to him; but nevertheless, if he refuses to do so, where a strong prima facie case has been made out, and when it is in his own power to offer evidence, if such exist, in explanation of such suspicious appearances, which would show them to be fallacious and explicable consistently with his innocence, it is a reasonable and justifiable conclusion that he refrains from doing so only from the conviction that the evidence so suppressed or not adduced would operate adversely to his interest''. (Wills' Principles of Circumstantial Evidence, Seventh Edition, page 314). Instead of lodging any report, we find the accused state before the Court that her brother had been sent to Gangawal to inform the family members of the deceased, but in absence of any suggestion made to Abdul Latif, it has to be rejected as a mere sifter-thought and a blatant lie. We, therefore, take it as established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Sarwar was a homicidal death. 10. THE next question which arises for our determination is whether there is any evidence to connect the appellant with the death of Sarwar. That takes is to a consideration of the dying declaration made by Sarwar before those who were attracted to the scene of occurrence. In the dying declaration, which Sarwar is said to have made, he assigned the commission of the crime to the appellant and not to her mother. That takes is to a consideration of the dying declaration made by Sarwar before those who were attracted to the scene of occurrence. In the dying declaration, which Sarwar is said to have made, he assigned the commission of the crime to the appellant and not to her mother. Ali Ullah (PW 10), whose house is at a distance of 50 or 60 paces from the scene of occurrence, Sattar (PW 13), whose house is on the other side of the road which lies in front of the house occupied by the deceased, and Ibrahim (PW15), whose house is at a distance oof 4 or 5 paces to the south of the house of Nasimul Rahman, have testified to the making of such a declaration by the deceased after he had been brought outside the kothri and before he was taken to the hospital. Against these witnesses nothing in particular has been elicited which could show that they were deposing falsely due to some oblique motive or owing to sinister considerations. It is not shown that the appellant or the members of her family were not on cordial terms with them. We may also note that Smt. Majida had been all through preventing her daughter to join the deceased in her village. There was obviously greater reason for the deceased to name Smt. Majida falsely, if at all he was drawing upon his imagination. We must thus accept the prosecution case that Sarwar did make the dying declaration and this dying declaration connects the appellant with the crime. Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the deceased was not in a fit state of mind at that hour and also that the evidence would warrant us to hold that he could not have spoken any thing at the moment when he is said to have disclosed the identity of the appellant. He has invited us to the statement of Dr. M. S. Steh (PW 16) that when Sarwar was admitted in the hospital at 2.30 A. M. he was talking incoherently and was in a confused and restless state. He has invited us to the statement of Dr. M. S. Steh (PW 16) that when Sarwar was admitted in the hospital at 2.30 A. M. he was talking incoherently and was in a confused and restless state. The cross-examiner, however, did not ascertain from the doctor as to whether such condition in all probability would have been there immediately after the suffering of the burn injuries, It is in evidence that the deceased after having been taken out from inside the kothri was standing on the road; his burning pajama was removed and he was made to wear another piece of cloth. It is also in evidence that he was asking for water and those, who were drawn to the scene of occurrence, refused to give water to him. In order to get water, he ran to the water- tank on the Faizabad Road from where he was shifted to the hospital. Indeed, the appellant has herself admitted in her statement under Section 364 Cr. P.C. that Sarwar was asking for water. That being so, it cannot be accepted that the injured was either in an unconscious condition of that on account of stress of injuries he had become speechless. "We are conscious that undocumented dying declarations are easy to get up and being based on the fading recollection and unsure probity of ordinary persons with human frailties, cannot be safely trusted save when the general features and other dependable materials justify reliance" vide Shivaji v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 , at p. 2632. The reliability of dying declaration has to be judged in the light of the circumstances, like the probability of the dying man for observation, whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement by circumstances beyond his control and whether the statement has been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested persons. Here the very lighting of the match-stick, which set fire to the clothes worn by the deceased, must have had shed light to enable Sarwar to identify the culprit. The transaction in which his hands were tied would also give him an opportunity to mark the culprit. Before he was shifted to the hospital he had not lost his senses. Here the very lighting of the match-stick, which set fire to the clothes worn by the deceased, must have had shed light to enable Sarwar to identify the culprit. The transaction in which his hands were tied would also give him an opportunity to mark the culprit. Before he was shifted to the hospital he had not lost his senses. The declaration consisted of a few words which in the condition was not improbable for the injured to make. None was present there who would have coached Sarwar in falsely implicating the appellant. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the dying declaration made by Sarwar truthfully discloses the identity of the appellant as being the author of the crime. 11. THE trial court has rightly negatived the evidence furnished by Nasimul Rahman (DW 1) and Mobin Uddin (DW 2). Nasimul Rahman was not throughout there until the time Sarwar was taken to the hospital. He states that he felt a little bad when he saw severe burns on the body of Sarwar. He, therefore, went inside his house and came outside only about half an hour after. He was unable to tell the court what Sarwar told to those who had collected there in that interval. His evidence, therefore, does not avail the defence. Mobin Uddin (DW 2) in his bid to support the defence has gone to the extent of saying that Sarwar was not asking for water, although the appellant had admitted that fact in her statement under Section 364 Cr. P. C. 12. COUNSEL for the appellant, in order to throw doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case as regards the dying declaration, has dwelt upon the omission with respect to it in the F.I.R. which was lodged by the cousin of Sarwar at 2 P. M. According to the F.I.R., before lodging the report Abdul Latif had met Chunna and Zahir who had taken out Sarwar from inside the kothri. If a dying declaration was made by the deceased, in the submission of the learned counsel, it would have found a mention in the F.I.R. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the omission should constrain us to hold that no such declaration was made. Chunna and Zahir have not been examined; they were discharged by the prosecution because they were not willing to depose to true state of affairs. Chunna and Zahir have not been examined; they were discharged by the prosecution because they were not willing to depose to true state of affairs. We do not know what Chunna and Zahir had told the informant. It is not inconceivable that in order to exonerate the appellant from the crime none of them had made a mention to the in - formant about the dying declaration. It was very strenuously submitted by the counsel for the appellant that if the accused were the author of the crime, she would have immediately managed to effect her escape from inside the kothri rather than she would wait there until the arrival of those living in the vicinity. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission, but we cannot agree that the conduct of the appellant is exculpetory of her guilt or is consistent with her innocence. The evidence clearly discloses that when Sarwar was taken out from inside the kothri, he ran to the road and made the declaration implicating the appellant. The risk of naming the appellant was all the greater if Sarwar were allowed to come outside the kothri, immediately after he was set on fire. In the normal course, as we have already stated in the above, we should have found the accused or her brother rendering some aid to the deceased. There is, however, no evidence to this effect. On the contrary, it has been brought out in evidence that the appellant along with her mother ran to the nearby house of her father and came there only after half an hour or so and that too upon the intervention of some of those who had been drawn to the scene of occurrence. 13. FOR the reasons discussed in the foregoing, we are clearly of the opinion that the trial court was absolutely correct in appreciation of the entire circumstances and reaching the conclusion of the guilt of the appellant. It is not a case in which it could be said that two views may reasonably be taken of the circumstances revealed in the evidence against the accused. 14. IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is in jail. She will serve out her sentence. Appeal dismissed.