JUDGMENT Kotwal, J. - A young girl hardly aged about 19 years, who was born and brought up in a poor family, was given in marriage to one person, who was working as a Vaccinator in Zilla Parishad and was posted at Shandi in Akola taluka of Ahmednagar district. The said person was widower as his first wife had died and he had two children out of the first wedlock. The parents of the girl were obliged to give their daughter in marriage sheerly out of Poverty. The girl then entered the wedlock with the dreams of happy married life, which however, were shattered when she realised that the accused was subjecting her to ill-treatment and physical violence. He was also taken to drinks. It is alleged that on 25th March 1984 accused had took up a quarrel with his wife, whose name was Shobha, being under the influence of drink and he even humiliated her by taking all the ornaments including Mangalsutra from her person. She was subjected to physical violence. Shobha's parents, who happened to be residing in nearby village had come to village Shendi at about noon time because a weekly bazar for all the adjoining villages is held at Shendi on evuy Sunday and 25 March 1984 was Sunday. By about noon time the parents had visited daughter's house when they found her to be very depressed and dejected and when questioned she told them about the husband's behaviour and also appraised them that all her ornaments including Mangalsutra were removed by the husband. The son-in-law-the accused was present there, who accepted removal of ornaments, but stated that it was just on account of prank, though he had no other intention. He, therefore, handed over the ornaments to Shobha, which she again wore on her person. The parents unmindful of the tragedy that was to follow left the house and went to market area. 2. Theo prosecution then alleged that after the departure of parents, the accused locked Shobha in her room and assaulted her after having a quarrel with her and removed the ornaments including Mangalsutra from her person. Not being satisfied with that desire, the accused is alleged to have taken a tin containing kerosene, poured the same on the person of Shobha and by igniting match-stick he set her on fire. Not being satisfied with that desire, the accused is alleged to have taken a tin containing kerosene, poured the same on the person of Shobha and by igniting match-stick he set her on fire. Shobha was engulfed in flames and she obviously started shouting and crying for help. This attracted the attention of neighbours. The accused, therefore, opened the door of the room and Shobha ran out of the room being completely in agonies. The people then started collecting. It is alleged that accused himself wrapped a mattress around the person of Shobha and tried to extinguish fire and made her sit on the mattress outside the room. 3. By that time the news spread in the market area, which was learnt by the parents of Shobha and they, therefore, rushed to the house. Shobha told her mother Chhabubai that she was set on fire by the accused. Chhabubai therefore, immediately rushed to the Outpost and informed the Police Head Constable Ghevarikar (P.W. 5) about the situation. The Police Head Constable, however, stood on technicalities and adopted an unusually unacceptable stance. He asked Chhabubai first to get a memo from the Medical Officer and it is only thereafter that he would go with her. Chhabubai, therefore, had no option and, therefore, she went to the Medical Officer Samudre (P.W. 6) and appraised him of the situation, who then gave his memo Exhibit 18 addressed to the Police Station Officer. Armed with that memo Chhabubai again went back to the Police Outpost and it is thereafter that Police Head Constable Ghevarikar started in company of Chhabubai to 'Shobha's house. By that time Dr. Samudre had also left the Dispensary on way to Shobha's house via Outpost. His colleague Dr. Kudale (P.W. 1) was also present in the Dispensary, who also left with the Nurse for medical aid to the house of Shobha. All thus gathered at the house of Shobha. It is alleged that Shobha made similar declaration involving the accused before these persons. His colleague Dr. Kudale (P.W. 1) was also present in the Dispensary, who also left with the Nurse for medical aid to the house of Shobha. All thus gathered at the house of Shobha. It is alleged that Shobha made similar declaration involving the accused before these persons. Police Head-Constable Ghevarikar then recorded the declaration of Shobha at her house itself, which is at Exhibit 16 and along with his occurrence report Exhibit 17 he forwarded all the documents including the memo of Medical Officer to the Police Station, on the basis of which offence was registered against the accused presumably under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code: Since Shobha's condition was serious it was decided to transfer her to Civil Hospital at Nasik. She was, therefore, taken to Nasik Civil Hospital in a Jeep. The accused was also taken along with her. Dr. Kale (P.W. 9), who was Casualty Medical Officer at that Hospital examined her and prepared case papers and to him also the same declaration was made by Shobha as giving the history. Dr. Kale realised Shobha's condition to be precarious because she had 91 % burns, which ultimately found to be 96%. Therefore, Special Judicial Magistrate Shri More was summoned. He after getting himself satisfied that Shobha was in a fit condition to make statement, recorded her dying declaration at Exhibit 24 in the Hospital. 4. Inspite of medical aid Shobha unfortunately succumbed to burn injuries in the hospital on 29th March 1984. The offence was then converted to one under section 302 of the Penal Code. In the meantime accused was arrested on 26th and his clothes were attached and various panchnamas were drawn. The accused had also in stained some injuries and he was examined by. Dr. Pawar (P.W. 3). The autopsy on the body of Shobha was done by Dr. Kokane (P.W. 1) and Post Mortem Notes are at Exhibit 9. The death was obviously due to burn injuries. 5. After completion the investigation the accused was charge-sheeted and ultimately was tried before the learned sessions Judge, Ahmednagar for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1984. 6. Pleading not guilty to the charge, the accused denied most of the adverse allegations. The death was obviously due to burn injuries. 5. After completion the investigation the accused was charge-sheeted and ultimately was tried before the learned sessions Judge, Ahmednagar for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1984. 6. Pleading not guilty to the charge, the accused denied most of the adverse allegations. However, he accepted that he had a quarrel with Shobha on that fateful day and he had removed Mangalsutra and other ornaments though be had given back. On the first occasion to Shobha herself. He accepted that he had received burn injury clarifying that he tried to extinguish the fire on account of which he sustained the injuries. He then gave a detailed statement to a question put to him wherein he stated that there ensued a quarrel between him and Shobha on that morning when he removed all the ornaments. At about 12 noon his mother-in-law and others came and on their instance be gave back the ornaments to Shobha. At about 3 p.m. there was a further quarrel between the two. His brother Kiran came and Shobha asked Kiran to take her, which was prevented by the accused. However, Shobha left in anger and, therefore, sheerly out of anger he snatched the Mangalsutra and told her that she would have no connection whatsoever with him thereafter. He then went to Bazar and. informed his father-in-law and asked him to take Shobha with him. His father-in-law accompanied him to his house when to his utter surprise he found Shobha engulfed in flames. He extinguished the fire and made her lie on the mattress outside the room. He thus claims not to be the author of the crime in question. It was suggested impliedly that either it was 11 case of accident or suicide. 7. The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution case and rejected the defence in its entirety and held the accused guilty for having set Shobha on fire and thus convicted him of the offence under section 302 of the Penal Code imposing sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-. It is this order dated October 3, 1984 that is being placed under challenge in this appeal. 8. 500/-. It is this order dated October 3, 1984 that is being placed under challenge in this appeal. 8. Shri Hudlikar the learned counsel appearing for the accused mainly contended that there are strong indications in the evidence Which would make it unsafe to place reliance on any of the dying declarations and also that there is no corroboration to the same whereas some features are contradicted and therefore it would be unsafe to place any reliance on any of the dying declarations and since the case hinges entirely on various dying declarations the conviction is not sustainable. Shri Phanse, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. In adopting the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge contended that the dying declaration are free of any infirmities and there is intrinsic material to corroborate some of the features in dying declarations and, therefore, same can be safely relied upon. 9. That the accused is a widower is accepted by him. He has two children from his first wedlock who were staying with him. After the death of first wife be married Shobha. Shobha hails from a poor family is also not disputed. In fact the mother stated that they were confronted with the poverty so much that they were unable to find any match for Shobha and thus they were obliged to marry Shobha to the widower like accused. These assertions are not challenged by the defence. Shobha was married to the accused hardly 4 or 5 months prior to the incident is also accepted by the defence. Chhabubai the mother of Shobha (P.W. 4) then gave the details of the said incident. She is resident of village Rajur in that very taluka. He had gone to Shendi on that Sunday-the 25th March 1984 to make purchases in Bazar as it was a weekly Bazar day. At noon time she and her husband had been to Shobha's house when Shobha was obviously depressed and dejected and had no ornaments on her person. Shobha told her that the accused had removed the ornaments. When questioned, the accused said that it was just a prank and he returned the ornaments to Shobha which she put on her person. Shobha prepared tea and there after Chhabubai and her husband went back to the Bazar. Sometime after 3-30 or 4 p.m. some persons told them that their daughter had caught fire. When questioned, the accused said that it was just a prank and he returned the ornaments to Shobha which she put on her person. Shobha prepared tea and there after Chhabubai and her husband went back to the Bazar. Sometime after 3-30 or 4 p.m. some persons told them that their daughter had caught fire. They therefore, rushed to the house of Shobha. Shobha was lying on the mattress outside the house. She made an oral declaration before her that her husband poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. She then went to the outpost and on direction from the Police Head Constable, she went to the Medical Officer Dr. Samudre, brought a memo Exhibit 18 to the Outpost and accompanied the Police Head Constable Ghevarikar to Shobha's house. In her presence Shobha narrated same thing to Police Head Constable, who recorded her dying declaration. Shobha was then removed to Nasik Hospital when she ultimately died on 29th. The Mangalsutra was not on the person of Shobha at that time. In her, cross-examination she accepted that she comes from a very poor family, which used to sustain themselves on labour work. The accused used to visit Bhandardara and was thus acquainted with their family. She asserted in cross-examination that on account of poverty they were unable to get Shobha married anywhere and, therefore, they requested the accused even though he was a widower, which offer was accepted by the accused. She then admitted that tea was prepared on the hearth because it is the prosecution case itself that there was only one Stove in the house, which admittedly was not in working condition and had no kerosene in the tank. This is brought out in the cross-examination of Chhabubai. She asserted that the accused did not meet them in the Bazar and thus the statement of the accused to the contrary remains unsupported. She admits that when she came to the house Shobha was lying on the mattress and some of the neighbors had already gathered there. She denied the suggestion that Shobha told her that she caught fire from the Stove. It was then suggested to her that it is she who tutored Shobha to falsely implicate the accused, which suggestion was stoutly denied. She admitted that the accused accompanied them to Nasik Civil Hospital. She denied the suggestion that Shobha told her that she caught fire from the Stove. It was then suggested to her that it is she who tutored Shobha to falsely implicate the accused, which suggestion was stoutly denied. She admitted that the accused accompanied them to Nasik Civil Hospital. This in short is the evidence of this witness Chhabubai the core of which has remained unaffected. 10. Then in chronological order we have the evidence of Ghevarikar (P.W. 5) because Chhabubai went to Outpost to which he was attached. According to him at about 4 O'clock Chhabubai came running and told him that Shobha had sustained burn injuries and that he should arrange for a doctor. This witness surprisingly showed cold shoulders and asked Chhabubai to go to the Medical Officer and get a memo. Within a short time Chhabubai brought the memo from Dr Samudre and he went with Chhabubai to Shobba's house. The Medical Officer followed him. Shobha was lying on the mattresses outside the house. She was crying and weeping. She orally told these people including this witness that her husband poured kerosene on her person and he set her on fire. The accused however was not seen near about. The witness then asserts that he ascertained from the two Medical Officers about Shobha's physical and mental condition which was certified to be fit and thereafter he recorded the dying declaration of Shobha on the spot at Exhibit 16, and obtained signatures of the two doctors on the same. Since he was advised by the doctor to remove Shobha to Nasik Civil Hospital, .he arranged for Jeep and carried Shobha as also accused and Shobha's parents to Nasik. He prepared occurrence report Exhibit 17. He admitted that the sentence introduced in the dying declaration Exhibit 16 that Shobha had sustained 80% burns was written by him on bearing the Medical Officers discussing amongst themselves. He denied the suggestion that Exhibit 16 was drafted and written by him at the instigation of parents of Shobha. This is practically all the cross-examinations of this witness and we do not find even a single valid reason to even doubt the veracity of this witness in so far as dying declaration is concerned. He denied the suggestion that Exhibit 16 was drafted and written by him at the instigation of parents of Shobha. This is practically all the cross-examinations of this witness and we do not find even a single valid reason to even doubt the veracity of this witness in so far as dying declaration is concerned. His assertion that Shobha initially orally told him and thereafter repeated the same in the written dying declaration Exhibit 16 is not affected by any cross-examination worth the name. The document Exhibit 16 itself supports it. 11. Then we have on record the evidence of two Medical Officers Dr. Samudre and Dr. Kudale, Dr. Samudre (P.W. 6) fully supports the prosecution on all the counts. According to him Chhabubai came to his Dispensary as he was working as Medical Officer in that Dispensary at Shendi. He asked Chhabubai to bring Shobha to his dispensary however, within a short time accused came and told him that Shobha was not in a position to leave the house and, therefore, he, Dr. Kudale and two nurses went to the house of Shobha. Shobha was in agonies and was shouting and telling him and her people that she was set on fire by her husband after pouring kerosene on her person. By that time Police Head Constable Ghevarikar had also arrived and Dr. Samudre asked him to record Shobha's statement, which he did at Exhibit 16. He asserted that in his presence. Shobha told the police officer that she was set on fire by the accused after pouring kerosene on her person. He was asked by the Police Head Constable about the condition of Shobha and he certified that she was in a fit condition and said certificate is at Exhibit 20 and he has also signed on the dying declaration Exhibit 16 itself. Exhibit 20 mentions burn injuries upto 91 %. There is hardly anything in the cross-examination of this witness even to doubt his veracity and credibility. He admitted that he did not state before the police that he had asked Shobha how she received the injuries before arrival of the Police Head-Constable Ghevarikar and that Shobha had told him at that time that her husband had set her on fire. It was suggested to him that he was not attentive when the declaration Exhibit 16 was recorded by the Police Head Constable, which suggestion he denied. It was suggested to him that he was not attentive when the declaration Exhibit 16 was recorded by the Police Head Constable, which suggestion he denied. As regards the omission in police statement the thrust appears to be that no statement was made before the arrival of Police Head Constable Ghevarikar. It was not suggested even that no such statement was made either orally or in writing by Shobha after the arrival of Police Head-Constable. Therefore, even assuming that immediately before the arrival of Shobha no statement was made by Shobha still it cannot be overlooked that there was hardly any margin of time because within a few minutes after their arrival Police Head-Constable Ghevarikar came to the spot and it is now established that the first oral declaration was before Ghevarikar and then it was reduced to writing. He is the responsible Medical Officer and nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to discredit him. He is supported by his certificate Exhibit 20 and his signature on the dying declaration Exhibit 16. 12. The last witness in that category is Dr. Kudale (P.W. 7) who fully supports the evidence of other witness Dr. Saimidre. He was working as Medical Officer at Bhandardara at about 4 or 4-30 p.m, Chhabubai came to that dispensary and told him that her son-in-law Prakash-the accused herein, poured kerosene on the person of her daughter Shobha and set her on fire. He asked Chhabubai to go to the police station and he lost no time when he himself along with Staff Nurses and attendant left by shorter route reaching Shobha's place. Within a short time Dr. Samudre also came via police station. Shobha was lying on the mattress outside the house and she was crying and saying that she was set on fire by the husband. Within a short time Police Head Constable Ghevarikar came to whom also similar oral declaration was made where after it was reduced to writing, Exhibit 16 in his presence which was admitted by Shobha as correctly recorded. He himself signed on that document. He accepts in his cross-examination that within short time after arrival of Chhabubai the accused also came to the dispensary and told the doctors that due to severe injuries it was not possible to bring Shobha to dispensary. He himself signed on that document. He accepts in his cross-examination that within short time after arrival of Chhabubai the accused also came to the dispensary and told the doctors that due to severe injuries it was not possible to bring Shobha to dispensary. The omission is brought out from the police statement that Shobha had not made any oral declaration before arrival of Dr. Samudre and Police Head-Constable Ghevarikar. We have already discussed that it is not as if that there was time gap between arrival of Police Officers and Medical Officers. Practically all of them came simultaneously and, therefore, Shobha making statement before the Head Constable was also addressed to these Medical Officers. The accused was working as Vaccinator under these Medical Officers. He even denied the suggestion that there was quarrel suggestion that that is why he was giving false evidence beyond making this bald suggestion there is nothing in the cross-examination worth the name. 13. The scene is then switched over to Civil Hospital at Nasik and we have the evidence of Dr. Kale, who was Casualty Medical Officer in that hospital. At about 9-30 p.m. Special Judicial Magistrate Shri More (P.W. 8) approached him and asked him to find out if Shobha Was in a. fit condition to make any statement. He examined Shobha and certified in the affirmative. He was then asked to leave the room and after some time he was asked to come back which was after P.W. More recorded the dying declaration. He again examined Shobha and found her to be in fit condition. He then put his signature on the foot of the statement. Similar endorsement has been made in the case papers at Exhibit 26 to the effect that Shobha was in a fit condition to make a statement and that Shobha herself told him that she had a quarrel with her husband, who set her on fire. This is boldly reflected in the case papers Exhibit 26. The most surprising feature is that the defence declined to cross-examine this witness whatsoever and therefore, entire evidence has gone unchallenged. He is corroborated by his signature on Dying Declaration Exhibit 24 and his own endorsement on the case papers Exhibit 26. The said evidence, therefore, deserves to be accepted safely. 14. The last witness in that behalf is Special Judicial Magistrate Shri More (P.W. 8). He is corroborated by his signature on Dying Declaration Exhibit 24 and his own endorsement on the case papers Exhibit 26. The said evidence, therefore, deserves to be accepted safely. 14. The last witness in that behalf is Special Judicial Magistrate Shri More (P.W. 8). According to him he received memo from the police station for recording dying declaration of victim. He went to the hospital all about 9.25 p.m. and got ascertained from Dr. Kale that Shobha was in a fit condition to make a statement. He then asked Dr. Kale to leave the room and recorded Shobha's statement Exhibit 24. He again called Dr. Kale and got examined Shobha from him. He certified her to be in a fit condition; He faithfully recorded the statement as narrated by Shobha. He asked all the persons in the room to go out including Dr. Kale and thereafter he recorded the statement of Shobha. He admitted in cross-examination that a. far as he remember the police. Parent of Shobha and accused were in the room, who were asked to go out. Beyond this question there is no cross-examination whatsoever of this witness and, therefore, his a section that Shobha was in a fit condition to make statement as was certified by the Doctor and as was satisfied by him also and that Shobha made statement Exhibit 24, which was truthfully and correctly recorded has gone unchanged. The same has been rightly accepted by the learned trial Judge. 15. Shri Hudlikar, the learned counsel for the appellant criticised the evidence on some counts. The first criticism is levelled against the Police Head Constable Ghevarikar. According to the learned counsel when Chhabubai gave such an important information of a cognizable offence it is surprising that Police Head Constable did not record that statement anywhere in the Register and did not himself go with Chhabubai to Shobha's house. That Police Head-Constable asked Chhabubai to first get the memo from the Medical Officer can hardly be condoned, much less encouraged and we are in agreement with the comments levelled by the learned Judge and against the callous attitude of the Police Head Constable, who had before him a weeping mother saying that her daughter is dying. Instead of going with her Head Constable asked her to get the memo from the Medical Officer. Instead of going with her Head Constable asked her to get the memo from the Medical Officer. However, this lapse does not change the complexion in the instant case because of other overwhelming evidence. Fortunately Chhabubai could contact Dr. Samudre immediately and within five minutes she brought the memo because it is refreshing to find that Dr. Kudale and Samudre acted swiftly and they lost no time and relished to the house of Shobha with medical aid. By that time Head Constable Ghevarlkar, who perhaps might have realised his mistake rushed to the house of Shobha and immediately recorded dying declaration Exhibit 16 without any loss of time. Shri Hudlikar, the learned counsel then contended that Chhabubai told Dr. Samudre that her daughter had sustained burns and the memo Exhibit 18 also reflects the same situation. The criticism therefore is that it is not that Chhabubai told the Medical Officer that her daughter was set on fire by her son-in-law and if she had really told so then the memo Exhibit 18 should have reflected the same. We are not impressed with his submission also. It cannot be overlooked that Chhabubai's uppermost anxiety was to get the police officer as also the Medical Officer to do something in the matter and essentially to get the medical aid to the injured daughter. Dr. Samudre's anxiety was equally the same because he wanted to give memo for the police officer to make him come on the spot. Dr. Samudre himself had not seen the condition of Shobha. Therefore, he was cautious enough not to exaggerate in the memo and the purpose of memo would have been served by merely informing the Police Head Constable that Shobha is injured. We do not find any substance in the criticism against the Medical Officer though on the contrary his re-action is quite normal. Merely because both the declarations are not in question and answer form, that by itself is no ground to discard the said two documents. Shri Hudlikar, the learned counsel then contended that two Medical Officers have not been shown their signatures on the dying declarations Exhibit 16. However, this pales in the background because their positive ascertain that they signed on Exhibit 16 has gone unchallenged. It was then contended that Exh. Shri Hudlikar, the learned counsel then contended that two Medical Officers have not been shown their signatures on the dying declarations Exhibit 16. However, this pales in the background because their positive ascertain that they signed on Exhibit 16 has gone unchallenged. It was then contended that Exh. 16 docs not contain in clear terms either the endorsement or certificate from the Medical Officer that Shobha was in fit condition to make statement. It is true that there is no specific endorsement as such. However, as discussed earlier the positive assertion made by the two Medical Officers that Shobha was in a fit condition to make statement has lone unchallenged and been fully supported by the Head Constable Ghevarlkar. The very fact that these two Medical Officers signed on Exhibit 16 will have to be taken as being done so in token of certifying that Shobha was in a fit condition to make the statement and also as witnessed that Shobha did make that statement before them. 16. Shri Hudlikar, the learned counsel then contended that the conduct of the accused belies the prosecution allegations. That therefore, reliance is placed on three features, the first is that admittedly accused himself had wrapped mattress around the person of Shobha in an endeavor to extinguish the fire, put her on mattress outside the house, secondly he himself went to Dr. Samudre and told him that due to severe burn injuries Shobha could not be brought to the dispensary and that Medical Officer himself should go to his house and the third is that he bad himself gone to Nasik Civil Hospital in the same Jeep along with Police and Shobha. Reliance was also sought to be placed on a further feature about the accused sustaining some burn injuries, on which aspect we will offer our comments at proper juncture. It is no doubt true that it is admitted by the witnesses all these three features. However, in the face of other overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence, this cannot over shadow the evidence. We find some substance in the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Phanse in that behalf. It is no doubt true that it is admitted by the witnesses all these three features. However, in the face of other overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence, this cannot over shadow the evidence. We find some substance in the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Phanse in that behalf. It is to be noted that as per the dying declaration Shobha was first in the inner room and kerosene was poured on her person from the tin containing said liquid by the accused and by igniting the match-stick the accused set her on fire. The declaration makes it further clear that the door of the room was latched from inside by the accused. Though it is true that the door was opened by the accused, two features stand on the forefront in that behalf. The first is that the accused obviously consumed enough time before he opened the door and by that time major part of the mischief was already complete in the sense that not only Shobha was engulfed in flames but she was so clearly burnt that chances of her survival were removed and the purpose of the accused was served. It is not as if that therefore, as soon as she was set on fire he opened the door. It is apparent from the fact that when Dr. Samudre examined her outside the house he found not less than 91% burns. Secondly the accused himself was required to go out of the room and therefore, he had to open the same though as rightly submitted by Shri Phanse, he delayed that process deliberately. There is evidence of Bhagubai (P.W. 10) who is the next door neighbour that as scan as she heard the quarrel and commotion the other inmates of the house rushed out of the house though she could not come out because her child was ailing. Thus the neighbour had collected immediately when Shobha came out weeping and crying. Chhabubai's evidence also shows the same feature that when she rushed to the house of Shobha she saw several persons collected near Shobha. Therefore, Shri Phanse the learned Public Prosecutor contends with some Justification that the act of wrapping mattress around the person of Shobha was forced on the accused by the situation because when the people bad collected. Chhabubai's evidence also shows the same feature that when she rushed to the house of Shobha she saw several persons collected near Shobha. Therefore, Shri Phanse the learned Public Prosecutor contends with some Justification that the act of wrapping mattress around the person of Shobha was forced on the accused by the situation because when the people bad collected. If he had indulged in Inaction then that would have been the best proof against the guilt and, therefore, in the self interest he behaved in that manner though by that time he realised that sufficient damage was already done. His conduct thereafter in going to Dr. Samudre's dispensary and thereafter going to Nasik hospital is rationally explained on the same hypothesis as rightly contended by the learned Public Prosecutor. It also cannot be overlooked and is wholly accepted that after the incident and after realising the ghastly consequence of that cruel act the perpetrator of the said act many times gets so unnerved that his reaction prompt him to act in a manner as if he was assisting the victim to cool down the agonies. In any event the circumstance cannot change especially when the other evidence is most clinching and has practically gone unchallenged. It also cannot be overlooked that by that time before departure for Nasik the Police Officer was told about the involvement of accused when Shobha's written dying declaration was recorded and the documents were already sent to the Police Station. Therefore, there was no escape for the accused and the evidence of the Head Constable Ghevarlkar indicates that he sent the accused along with Shobha and her parents in the same jeep to Nasik Hospital. It is one thing to Bay that the accused was anxious to accompany Shobha and it is another thing to say that he was sent under that situation by the Police Officer because he was the accused person in that behalf. 17. It is now the opportune time to examine the two declarations Exhibits 16 and 24 which are written documents. Exhibit 16 disclosed to the Police Head Constable after preliminaries about her name and residence that she was married to the accused four months earlier. The accused, however, always used to trouble her after her marriage though she observed patience and continued to stay with him. Exhibit 16 disclosed to the Police Head Constable after preliminaries about her name and residence that she was married to the accused four months earlier. The accused, however, always used to trouble her after her marriage though she observed patience and continued to stay with him. She has no doubt stated therein that on two previous occasions after her marriage the accused had indulged in similar attempt to set her on fire by pouring kerosene. However, she did not complain to the police as she wanted to continue in the same house. As regards the main incident on 25th March she stated that about 4 p.m. her husband Prakash set her on fire by pouring kerosene and she came out from the house and fell on the ground. It is mentioned therein that Shobha was completely burnt out and skin was peeled out and she had sustained about 80% of burns. She reiterated that her statement that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire was correct. As stated there is hardly any effective cross-examination of the two Medical Officers and the Police Head Constable Ghevarlkar in that behalf. The document bears the signatures of the two Medical Officers. It is no doubt true that it is mentioned in that document that there was attempt on the life of Shobha on two prior occasions though; there is no corroboration to that. It is also worth-noting that Chhabubai the mother of Shobha has not even deposed to that aspect as normally Shobha would have confided in her mother though her inaction in not going to the police can well be understood. We would, therefore, not attach much significance to that statement though we cannot brand it as a total falsehood. There is evidence in an unequivocal term that the accused and the accused alone poured kerosene on the person of Shobha and set her on fire at about 4 p.m. in the house where after she came out of the house and fell on the ground. 18. Exhibit 24 was recorded in Nasik Civil Hospital by Shri More, Special Judicial Magistrate, contains more details. After giving preliminaries she stated that at about 4 p.m. she was sitting in the house when Mangalsutra on her person was snatched by the accused. Prior thereto accused was beating her since morning. 18. Exhibit 24 was recorded in Nasik Civil Hospital by Shri More, Special Judicial Magistrate, contains more details. After giving preliminaries she stated that at about 4 p.m. she was sitting in the house when Mangalsutra on her person was snatched by the accused. Prior thereto accused was beating her since morning. He had consumed alcohol on the previous night and in the morning also. She asked the accused as to why her Mangalsutra was removed. Immediately thereafter he took out kerosene tin poured some liquid in utensil and poured the same on the person of Shobha took out match box and after igniting set her on fire. Thereafter the accused opened the door and she immediately ran out. No one was present at that time in the house. She fell down where after the accused brought mattress and extinguished the fire. It makes a reference that thereafter Dr. Samudre and Dr. Kudale and they gave injection and Police Head Constable recorded her statement, which was read over to her and was correct. She was thereafter removed to Civil Hospital at Nasik as she was not knowing reading and writing and hence her thumb impression was taken on the document. She had no doubt stated further that accused had set on fire his deceased wife also. However, on this count also there is no evidence worth the name and it would not be proper to allow this feature to be introduced to override other features. She then asserted that her nephew was also driven out, whose name is Ravi and she wanted to go with him which was objected to by the accused. There is mention that her statement was read over to her and admitted that it is correct. 19. Even making allowance in respect of some of the details in Exhibit 24 which we do not find place in Exhibit 16, since the core of the allegations has remained intact in both the documents in a very bold manner. There is positive assertion that there was a quarrel, that there was removal of Mangalsutra and that accused poured kerosene on her person and then set her on fire. There is also, reference to the arrival of Dr. Samudre and Dr. There is positive assertion that there was a quarrel, that there was removal of Mangalsutra and that accused poured kerosene on her person and then set her on fire. There is also, reference to the arrival of Dr. Samudre and Dr. Kudale as also Police Head Constable Ghevarikar and Exhibit 24 refers to previous declaration Exhibit 16 Now this is to be read in the context of evidence of P.W. More, Special Judicial Magistrate and Dr. Kale, Medical Officer. Both of them have asserted that Shobha was in a fit condition to make that statement and what is of more importance is that document contains a certificate issued by Dr. Kale under his signature that Shobha was examined prior and subsequent to her statement and was found to be in a fit condition to make the same. The endorsement is at two places, one before the declaration was recorded and other after it was concluded. As stated, the evidence of these two responsible witnesses has practically gone unchallenged. Thus it would be apparent that not only there is no conflict or contradiction as such between the two written documents Exhibits 16 and 24 but there is an undercurrent of consistency in the two on the main aspect. 20. In that behalf there are some salient features which furnish an implied corroboration intrinsically to the declaration. The first is that there was quarrel between the two spouses on that afternoon, when the accused snatched the Mangalsutra from Shobha's person and on demand from Chhabubai he gave it back to Shobha. This is accepted by the accused in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the departure of parents at 3 p.m. there was repeat performance when the accused again snatched the Mangalsutra which was worn by Shobha and this is stated specifically in the declaration Exh. 24. In that behalf we have positive evidence of Chhabubai, who asserted that Mangalsutra was not on the person of Shobha at that time. We have also evidence of Bhagubai (P.W. 10), who is next door neighbour. 24. In that behalf we have positive evidence of Chhabubai, who asserted that Mangalsutra was not on the person of Shobha at that time. We have also evidence of Bhagubai (P.W. 10), who is next door neighbour. According to her after she heard the commotion she went out only after arrival of Medical Officer when Shobha was lying in injured condition Shobha was being removed to Nasik and at that time accused hurriedly came to her house and threw Mangalsutra on her lap saying that he would come on the next day and since there were small children in the house she put the Mangalsutra in the tank of the Stove, and she produced the same before the police when it was attached under the panchnama. The evidence of this witness contains a very telling circumstance because the accused admits in his statement that on the second occasion also he had removed the Mangalsutra, This Mangalsutra was not on the person of Shobha when she was removed to Nasik and it was later on attached under the pancnnama as was produced by Bhagubai. Therefore, this assertion in the dying declaration gets substantial support through the circumstances. Then It is worth-noting one of the striking feature in this case affording immense corroboration in a very compelling manner. The dying declarations assert that accused opened the door and he came out. Shobha also came out where after Shobha fell outside the house when the people including Chhabubai collected, Shobha was then seen lying on the mattress and this was also seen by the two Medical Officers, and Police Officer Shobha then asserts in one of the dying declarations that the accused had wrapped the mattress around her in order to extinguish the fire and made her lie on that mattress. Now in the nature of things it is impossible for Shobha of her own while coming out of the room to carry the mattress because she was in agonies and shouting for help. Shobha there after was admittedly found lying on the mattress outside the house. Therefore, some other agency should have been instrumental for getting the mattress from the house and making Shobha to lie on it. Shobha there after was admittedly found lying on the mattress outside the house. Therefore, some other agency should have been instrumental for getting the mattress from the house and making Shobha to lie on it. This is precisely what Shobha stated in her declaration and what is of more importance is that this is accepted by the accused that he wrapped the mattress around her and made her lie on the same, on extinguishing fire. This could never lave he en imagined by Shobha under the circumstances unless it was reality. Consequently, therefore this in our opinion, affords formidable corroboration in a very compelling manner internally to the recitals in the dying declaration. As stated the quarrels are accepted by the accused and those are also reflected in the declarations which also could not have been imagined by Shobha unless it was so. 21. There is positive reference to arrival of Dr. Kudale, Dr Samudre and Police Officers, which also could not be out of imagination of Shobha. In our opinion, therefore, these are the circumstances which afford intrinsic corroboration internally giving label of truthfulness to these two written documents. 22. As stated, we have on record the oral dying declarations first made to two Medical Officers Dr. Samudre and Dr. Kudale and then to the Police Head Constable Ghevarikar. As discussed there is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses even to doubt their credibility and, therefore, their assertions will have to be accepted their arrival on the spot immediately after the incident is not disputed by the defence. What is of more importance is that it was not even suggested that Shobha was not in a position to make any statement either orally or documentary before anyone including these three officers. We are also surprised to note that no endeavor was made by the defence to ask to the Medical Officer as to what treatment was given and what was the condition of Shobha when she is supposed to have made those statements. Their assertion that she was in a fit condition has gone unchallenged. No medical record has been got produced by the defence in that behalf, Similar is the case after Shobha was removed to Nasik Hospital and as stated the statement of Dr. Kale and Shri More has practically gone unchallenged. 23. Their assertion that she was in a fit condition has gone unchallenged. No medical record has been got produced by the defence in that behalf, Similar is the case after Shobha was removed to Nasik Hospital and as stated the statement of Dr. Kale and Shri More has practically gone unchallenged. 23. We have then on record one another circumstance as reflected through the injuries sustained by the accused while Dr. Pawar (P.W. 3) examined the accused on 26th at about 11 a.m. He found eight external injuries on his person. Five out of those were abrasions on the eve-brow, wrist, palm and back while one was haematoma on the eye lid. The eighth injury was blister on the right thumb and index finger base and it was skin-deep; The Medical Officer asserted that the first seven injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object while injury No. 8 could have been caused by burn. This has a deeper Implication in the context of the prosecution allegations about the quarrel and snatching of Mangalsutra preceding the main incident. This is, therefore, strongest indication that there was some resistance and struggle at the hands of the victim, which only explains abrasions and haematoma on the person of accused. This therefore affords further corroboration to the story that the accused had quarrels with her twice and was beating her and removed the ornaments on two occasions. It is but natural that Shobha being married lady, would have seriously objected to the accused removing Mangalsutra from her person and in that process she could not be meet spectator but must have offered some resistance and that is boldly reflected in external injuries 1 to 7 having been caused on the person of accused. It is worth noting that none of these 7 injuries could have been caused by burns. The 8th injury though caused by burn is a very minor one being small blister on the thumb and base of index finger. The cumulative effect of these injuries is asserted by the Medical Officer negativing injuries Nos. 1 to 7 having been caused by burns as stated by the accused exposes falsity of the statement In the defence since if he had really tried to extinguish the fire in a serious manner the injuries would have been by burns causing blister and certainly not the abrasions or haematoma. 1 to 7 having been caused by burns as stated by the accused exposes falsity of the statement In the defence since if he had really tried to extinguish the fire in a serious manner the injuries would have been by burns causing blister and certainly not the abrasions or haematoma. This therefore, has two fold significance, first it falsifies the defence to the large extent and secondly it supports the prosecution case as reflected in the declaration that there was quarrel, there was removal of Mangalsutra and therefore, there must have been resistance at the hands of Shobha. The learned trial Judge added one more inference to these circumstances observing that the blister on the thumb and base of index finger might have caused when the match stick was ignited. Apparently there is reason to discard this observation which is quite logical under the circumstances. However, even it is excluded the falsity of the defence and truthfulness of the prosecution case remains intact. There is no adequate cross-examination of Dr. Pawar (P W. 3) when he asserts that the injuries Nos. 1 to 7 are possible through the resistance and assault. 24. We have the evidence of panch witness Burban Khot (P.W. 12) and supported by the panchnama Exhibit 35 about the arrest of the accused, which was on 26th March at 1 a.m. at Bhadrakali Police Station. These eight Injuries were noted down in the panchnama Exhibit 35. The clothes on the person of accused were attached and some of these clothes had blood stains. Now the importance lies in the fact that when those clothes were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser, on analysis It was certified that the said two clothes viz., Manila and Pant had traces of kerosene and the test was positive and the tin containing kerosene was also forwarded and which was certified to contain kerosene. It is true as contended by Shri Hudlikar, the learned counsel that the panchnama does not refer to any such smell of kerosene emitting from the clothes. However, it cannot be overlooked that enough time had elapsed and smell by itself may be a factor which could have been missed especially when the panchnama was drawn at about 1 a.m. however, on careful analysis by expert like Chemical Analyser truth came on the forefront when on analysis clothes found to contain kerosene. However, it cannot be overlooked that enough time had elapsed and smell by itself may be a factor which could have been missed especially when the panchnama was drawn at about 1 a.m. however, on careful analysis by expert like Chemical Analyser truth came on the forefront when on analysis clothes found to contain kerosene. This affords further corroboration to dying declaration when Shobha asserted that the accused took the tin of kerosene and poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. It is in that process some kerosene drops might have `sprinkled on the clothes of the accused whereas if accused had arrived on the spot subsequently and merely endeavoured to extinguish the fire outside the room then the clothes having traces of kerosene was an impossibility. The accused no doubt has a very fervent Imagination when he alleged in his statement that at the police station his clothes were removed by the police and kerosene was sprinkled on them, Shri Hudlikar, the learned counsel did not rely on such statement though the damage is already caused as impliedly accused accepted that clothes did contain traces of kerosene and that is what precisely the Chemical Analyser found. Even executing the statement of the accused that factor is established beyond doubt. 25. On a careful analysis of all this evidence, therefore, it becomes manifestly clear beyond any reason that the accused was the author of the crime in question. Even the remote possibility of any suicide or accident is ruled out. There was no reason for this young girl of 18 or 19 years to think of committing suicide hardly four months after her marriage because on the contrary her mental frame indicates that inspite of ill treatment she was showing enough patience and she was determined to stay in matrimonial house. She accepts that the accused was widower and therefore, it is not as if that she disliked her poverty but made to realise that she had to stay with the accused and she had no alternative. The learned Judge has observed with some justification that removal of Mangalsutra is a telling circumstance serving as a prelude to the incident when accused wanted to liquidate his wife and, therefore, that most valuable ornament like Mangalsutra was first removed from her person. The learned Judge has observed with some justification that removal of Mangalsutra is a telling circumstance serving as a prelude to the incident when accused wanted to liquidate his wife and, therefore, that most valuable ornament like Mangalsutra was first removed from her person. The defence made by the accused as reflected in his statement is demonstrably proved to be false. There was hardly scope for tutoring Shobha and bald suggestion made to Chhabubai is defence of frustration and carries no conviction. Even before Chhabubai came on the scene people had already arrived and immediate utterances blurted out by Shobha involving the accused. Chhabubai could not have tutored Shobha in the presence of the people collected there because Chhabubai was never all alone with Shobha. The declaration was made in the same manner before the two responsible Medical Officers and Police Officers and subsequently before the Special Judicial Magistrate and the Medical Officer. The case papers Exh. 26 supports the case of Dr. Kale that patient herself gave the history and that is in the shape of declaration. It is thus fully established that in the first instance Shobha was in a fit condition, mentally as also physic ally to make the statement. Various endorsements and substantive evidence of Medical Officer make the situation quite clear. That Shobha did make such a statement as reflected in Exhibits 16 and 24 is not seriously disputed. That fact, therefore, is fully established. In addition to these written documents oral declarations were made on several occasions 'before several persons, which is also not seriously challenged. Thus the tact that Shobha did make that statement being in a fit condition is fully borne out. The circumstances clearly establish that it was a voluntary statement without having been tutored of prompted. The last feature is that there is intrinsic evidence which affords corroboration impliedly to some of the statements in the documents and, therefore, it can legitimately held that such statements are also true. All the required features therefore co-exist. The declarations oral as also written, therefore, can be safely relied upon as has been rightly done by the learned Trial Judge. All the required features therefore co-exist. The declarations oral as also written, therefore, can be safely relied upon as has been rightly done by the learned Trial Judge. Merely because Shobha died after four days does not change the complexion, because on the very first day after the incident she had sustained about 96 % of burns and if was really by way of providence or accident that she survived but her survival was in agonies. In our opinion, the nature of offence remains the same because in the very nature of things the act is so immensely dangerous that it must fall within the mischief of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The time gap of four days after and before the death is irrelevant because she never recovered inspite of best of medical treatment. That the accused had motive, he had made preparation and also committed the act and also had opportunity is fully established. A false defence in that behalf has been taken. The accused would have it that he had a quarrel with his wife in the afternoon and he removed her ornaments including the Mangalsutra went to the bazar in order to meet her parents and to tell them to take Shobha to their house. He did meet Shobha's father in the market and in his company he came back to the house and found Shobha engulfed in flames which he tried to extinguish. As stated the mother does not support this theory and categorically stated that in the market she learnt about the incident from villagers. It is also worth-noting that it is too much of a coincidence as suggested by the defence that when the accused went to the house with Shobha's father, Shobha was outside engulfed in flames. This on the contrary is a pointer to suggest and infer that the accused was also close to the venue when Shobha sustained burns so that he could reach near her while she was in flames which again makes him go close to Shobha inside the room and not in the market place as posed by him. Anyway the defence is demonstrably established to be false. This is an additional factor. Though, the prosecution case is had proved on its own merits and not on the falsity of the defence. As stated, the theory of suicide has no existence. Anyway the defence is demonstrably established to be false. This is an additional factor. Though, the prosecution case is had proved on its own merits and not on the falsity of the defence. As stated, the theory of suicide has no existence. Similarly it could never have been the case of accident, because it is established that there was only one stove in the house which did not contain any kerosene and which was admittedly out of order and which was not in use. The only source was hearth in which however, no fire wood was found at that time. Consequently, therefore, there was no scope for any accident as such. On the contrary, the declarations supported by thrust of circumstances establish beyond doubt that it was a clear case of homicide perpetrated only by the accused. 26. That Shobha died of homicidal death is also established though evidence of Dr. Kale (P.W. 1) and Post Mortem Notes Exhibit 9, which is not disputed by the defence. 27. The learned trial Judge has recorded a correct finding on the basis of well reasoned and well considered judgment. There is thus no substance in this appeal. 28. Appeal dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge is confirmed. Appeal dismissed.