PATHAK, C. J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Kahnu Majhi bas been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for life for intentionally causing the death of his wife Singha Majhi. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in short is that on the night of 24-10-79 the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to her body as a result of which she received burn injuries and died. ( 3 ) THE matter was reported at the Plant Site Police Station, Rourkela, by one Gobardhan Ghunia who stated that while he was taking his meals in his house at about 9 p. m. he beard some hue and cry coming out from the house of the appellant and came running to that p\ace. He found the deceased crying out in pain as her body was burning with fire. She exclaimed that the appellant, her husband, poured kerosene on her and set fire to her body. ( 4 ) ON getting this information, the police came to the place of occurrence and finding the deceased in a very critical condition advised her to be taken to the hospital. The deceased was immediately admitted in the Ispat General Hospital at Rourkela in the same night at about 10. 45 p. m. where in spite of treatment she succumbed to the burn injuries on 17-11-79. ( 5 ) AFTER completion of the investigation, the police charge-sheeted the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and he was put on trial. ( 6 ) THE appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that while the deceased was cooking, her wearing Sari caught fire from the oven as a result of which there were burn injuries on her. She was removed to the hospital for treatment where she died. ( 7 ) TEN witnesses including the doctors P. Ws. 2 and 3 and the police officers P. Ws. 9 and 10 have been examined for the prosecution. The defence has examined none. ( 8 ) THE informant has not been examined as he was not found. ( 9 ) AS the appellant was not represented by any counsel, we have engaged Mr. Achyutananda Routray, Advocate, to represent him at the State expense. ( 10 ) MR. 9 and 10 have been examined for the prosecution. The defence has examined none. ( 8 ) THE informant has not been examined as he was not found. ( 9 ) AS the appellant was not represented by any counsel, we have engaged Mr. Achyutananda Routray, Advocate, to represent him at the State expense. ( 10 ) MR. Routray submits that the learned trial court was wrong in convicting the appellant solely on the basis of the dying declaration of the deceased, the evidence with regard to which is shaky. ( 11 ) THE factum of the death of the deceased is not in dispute. It has been clearly testified by the evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 7. ( 12 ) P. W. 1, Dr. Soudamini Misra, conducted the postmortem examination and found the following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased: (i) 90 per cent of the body was burnt. The whole of the thorax, abdomen, both the legs, both the buttocks and half of the back were burnt. (ii) There was cloudy swelling of the viscera. According to P. W. 1, all the injuries were caused by burning and were ante-mortem in nature. On dissection, she noticed that the heart contained very little blood of cherry colour. The defence declined to cross-examine this witness. ( 13 ) FROM the evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 7 we find that at the time of occurrence as the deceased raised a hue and cry, they went to the place of occurrence and found the deceased with burn injuries on her person. P. W. 6 was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on his evidence. ( 14 ) P. W. 7, has, however given a candid and detailed description of the occurrence. He has stated that on the night of occurrence at about 9 p. m. while he was in the courtyard of his house, he heard the cries of the deceased and noticed flames of fire near the house of the deceased. He rushed to the place and found the deceased coming out of the house. By then her entire body was burning. He also found that the appellant pulled out the Sari worn by the deceased from her person by which she became naked. He rushed to the place and found the deceased coming out of the house. By then her entire body was burning. He also found that the appellant pulled out the Sari worn by the deceased from her person by which she became naked. At that point of time he asked the appellant about the incident but the appellant kept mum. However, the deceased gave out that while she was asleep, the appellant poured kerosene on her and set fire to her body. This witness has been cross examined at great length, but nothing of substance has been brought out to discredit his testimony as regards his seeing the burn injuries on the person of the deceased as well as the statement of the deceased to the effect that the appellant put kerosene on her and set fire to her body. ( 15 ) P. W. 2, the doctor who admitted the deceased to the Ispat General Hospital, has stated that after admitting the deceased, he intimated the matter in writing (Ext. 2) to the Plant Site Police Station. From his evidence it is found that he examined the deceased and noticed the following injuries on her person: Burn injuries involving all the extremities, chest and abdomen, pedeneal region and some portion of the back and buttocks. The total area would be about 80 per cent of the body. According to P. W. 2, the injuries were fresh at the time of the examination. ( 16 ) P. W. 2 has stated that at the time of admission of the deceased to the hospital, she was quite conscious and to a question put by him as to how she sustained the injuries, the deceased replied that her husband (appellant) had poured kerosene on her clothings and then put fire on her. This dying declaration is found to have been recorded by P. W. 2 in Ext. 4/1. ( 17 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that P. W. 2 has deposed with reference to the Casualty Register which has not been proved by him at the trial. But we find that there is the bed-head ticket, Ext. 5, which has been proved to show that the deceased was undergoing treatment as an indoor patient 10 the Ispat General Hospital. But we find that there is the bed-head ticket, Ext. 5, which has been proved to show that the deceased was undergoing treatment as an indoor patient 10 the Ispat General Hospital. ( 18 ) THE evidence of P. W. 7 as well as P. W. 2 before whom the deceased made the statement to the effect that it was the appellant who put kerosene on her and set fire to her clothings as a result of which she received the burn injuries goes unchallenged. ( 19 ) P. W. 8, the brother of the deceased, has also made a similar statement that at the time when the deceased was taken to the hospital, she made the statement that it was the appellant who poured kerosene on her person and set fire to her body as a result of which she sustained the burn injuries. The evidence of this witness with regard to the dying declaration also goes unchallenged. ( 20 ) ON the evidence of P. Ws. 2,7 and 8, we have no manner of doubt that the deceased was in a position to make the dying declaration and their evidence gives a ring of truth. ( 21 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant tries to persuade us to look and consider the conduct of the appellant. He contends that if the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to her body, he would not have taken her in a tempo to the hospital for treatment immediately after the occurrence. The counsel tries to make much of the above conduct of the appellant. But these are all events subsequent to the occurrence. May be, later on, the appellant became repentant or that due to the fear of accusation by people, he had to go along with the deceased to the hospital. Besides, the appellant, being an employee of the Steel Authority of India, Rourkela, any of his dependants was entitled to free medical aid which might have prompted him to take the deceased to the hospital and get her admitted there. But we cannot overlook the fact that if the burn of the deceased was accidental as the appellant tries to make out, he would have raised an alarm like a man with normal human conduct. But he did nothing of the sort. In view of the overwhelming evidence of P. Ws. But we cannot overlook the fact that if the burn of the deceased was accidental as the appellant tries to make out, he would have raised an alarm like a man with normal human conduct. But he did nothing of the sort. In view of the overwhelming evidence of P. Ws. 2, 7 and 8 as regards the dying declaration which we have noticed above, the subsequent conduct of the appellant sought to be made out as a circumstance of innocence is of no avail to him. ( 22 ) ON a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of the learned trial court convicting the appellant as aforesaid. ( 23 ) IN the result, the appeal is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is confirmed. Appeal dismissed.