Judgment David Annoussamy, J. The accused appeals. 2. The case, as projected by the prosecution, can be summarised as follows: (a) The accused is the husband of the deceased Shanthi. They got married about ten years prior to the occurrence. They were blessed with two children, one boy and one girl. The accused was eking his livelihood by selling aluminimum and eversilver utensils. About three months prior to the occurrence the accused was annoying his wife Shanthi with demand of money. P.W.1 younger brother of Shanthi, got her property mortgaged and gave Rs.1, 000 to Shanthi. There was again another demand of money by the accused. P.W.1 got from the same mortgagee an additional amount of Rs.1, 500 and gave it to the accused. After spending away that amount, the accused again asked for money. Then P.W.1 arranged for the sale of the property to the mortgagee himself and gave Rs.4, 000 to his sister Shanthi and the balance to the accused for the purpose of his business. The amount of Rs.4, 000 was remitted back by Shanthi to P.W.1 to enable the latter to open a shop, (b) The accused, without informing Shanthi, contracted a second marriage with one Thamarai of Thiruvamur, a village which is not far away from the village, where the accused and Shanthi were living. P.W.1 who made enquiry about the second marriage. He alone scolded the accused, altercation ensued and people present there pacified P.W.1 and the accused. P.W.1 sent a letter to his elder brother, Natarajan, informing about the second marriage of the accused. He came to the village within two days that is, three days prior to the occurrence, (c) Shanthi questioned the accused about the second marriage. Whenever she raised that question, the accused used to beat her and used to say “I will be happy only after your death”, (d) On 1.3.1983 at about 8.30 P.M., after sending to bed the children, Shanthi also went to bed. The accused was on his cot. Shanthi raised the question as to where he has been and she was insulted by her husband; then the husband poured kerosene oil on her and set fire. She came out of the house and was proceeding to the house of her sister, Malliga, which was the next house. But, she could not reach her house and she fell down. Shanthi raised the question as to where he has been and she was insulted by her husband; then the husband poured kerosene oil on her and set fire. She came out of the house and was proceeding to the house of her sister, Malliga, which was the next house. But, she could not reach her house and she fell down. Then sand and water were poured on her, she was taken to the hospital in a taxi, (e) An intimation was sent by P.W.5, the doctor who admitted her in the hospital, to P.W.9 Constable of the outpost police station of the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore. On receipt of that intimation, P.W.9 came to see Shanthi at about 11.15 P.M., and she gave the complaint, Ex.P10 which is the F.I.R. in this case. Upon receipt of Ex.P10, P.W.11 the Sub Inspector of Police", Panruti Police Station registered a case in Crime No.129 of 1983, for an offence under Sec.307, I.P.C., against the accused. Then P.W.11 proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement, Ex.P12 from Shanthi. (f) On the next day, at 6.45 A.M., the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cuddalore, P.W.8 recorded the dying declaration of Shanthi, which is Ex.P8. At about 10.30 P.M. Shanthi passed away. Ex.P5 intimation was sent by P.W.6 doctor, to P.W.9 Constable of the outpost police station, who in turn sent the intimation to P.W.11, Sub Inspector of Police, who altered the case from Secs.307 to 302, I.P.C. and sent express F.I.Rs. to the authorities concerned. Upon receipt of the report, Ex.P13, P.W.12 Inspector of Police, proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 3.3.1983 at 7.30 P.M., and continued the investigation so far conducted by P.W.11. He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased at the hospital, Ex.P14 is the inquest report. P.W.7 doctor conducted autopsy. Ex.P7 is the post-mortem certificate, (g) The accused surrendered on 5.3.1983 before the Magistrate’s Court in Cuddalore. Upon completion of the investigation, P.W.12 was of the opinion that the accused appeared to have committed an offence of murder in respect of his wife Shanthi, and filed a report to that effect under Sec.173, Crl.P.C. 3. Upon committal, the Sessions Court of South Arcot at Cuddalore, framed a charge accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, P.W.12 was of the opinion that the accused appeared to have committed an offence of murder in respect of his wife Shanthi, and filed a report to that effect under Sec.173, Crl.P.C. 3. Upon committal, the Sessions Court of South Arcot at Cuddalore, framed a charge accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution produced the evidence collected in the course of the investigation and consisting of the depositions of 12 witnesses, production of 14 exhibits and 9 material objects. 5. When the accused was examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., in respect of the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, he denied any complicity with the crime and did not also come forward with any version regarding the death of his wife. 6. The trial Court found that the charge was proved and accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment by judgment dated 26.3.1984, giving rise to the present appeal. 7. The case of the appellant is that the prosecution has not proved satisfactorily the guilt of the accused and that the finding of the trial Court was not sustainable. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on his side contended that there was adequate evidence in the present case. We have been taken through the relevant portions of the evidence by both of them. 8. The main piece of evidence in this case is Ex.P8 recorded by P.W.8, Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cuddalore on 2.3.1983 at 6.45 a.m. in the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, in the presence of P.W.6, doctor. P.W.6 certified that the patient was conscious at the time of making the declaration. P.W.8 before recording the dying declaration, observed all the formalities prescribed by law. In Ex.P8 Shanthi clearly stated that her husband poured kerosene oil on her and set fire at 8.30 P.M. She added that she was soon ablaze and left the house. She stated that her brother Natara-jan poured sand on her She had also stated in that dying declaration that her husband was having connection with another woman, that she questioned her husband about the fact which incensed her husband, who poured kerosene and set her on fire. This evidence is fortified by Ex.P10 which is the earliest confession given by Shanthi to P.W.9, who came to see her in the hospital and recorded her statement. This evidence is fortified by Ex.P10 which is the earliest confession given by Shanthi to P.W.9, who came to see her in the hospital and recorded her statement. The same version was also given by Shanthi to the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.11, who after registering the case, came to record her statement, Ex.P12. 9. These statements of Shanthi find corroboration in the oral evidence of P.W.2, who deposed that after Shanthi came out of the house with her clothes burning, her husband left the house and went westward. 10. In addition, we have got the evidence from medical expert P.W.5 deposed that on 1.3.1983 as 11.05 P.M., he admitted Shanthi with burns, that she was conscious but her general condition was bad, pulse being feeble, P.W.7 who conducted the post-mortem examination noticed extensive burns all over the body, froth discharge from both the nostrils and was of opinion that the death was due to shock and on account of the burns sustained. He also expressed the opinion that the burns were sufficient to cause the death. 11. There was also a motive for the accused to get rid of his wife, Shanthi. The fact that she was being ill-treated from the time he came into contact with Thamarai has been declared by Shanthi herself. The fact that he was constantly demanding money from Shanthi has been clearly deposed by P.W.1 and his evidence in that respect was not at all challenged. In fact, only two questions were put to this witness at the time of cross-examination. It is also a fact that a sum of Rs.4, 000 out of the amount realised from the sale of the property belonging to Shanthi, was still in the hand of P.W.1, which was not to the satisfaction of the accused. This body of evidence, in our opinion, is certainly sufficient to record a finding of guilt against the accused. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant raised several contentions before us, which we shall now examine. The first contention is that from the evidence it does not appear that the victim stated that her husband set fire on her immediately after the occurrence and that she came out with that version only at the hospital. It is true that no witness has spoken to the fact that she has said so. The first contention is that from the evidence it does not appear that the victim stated that her husband set fire on her immediately after the occurrence and that she came out with that version only at the hospital. It is true that no witness has spoken to the fact that she has said so. But, P.W.2, stated that the husband who was in the house, came out of the house and proceeded westward. Therefore, the fact was so obvious, all those who were present that no one has made any reference thereto. But as soon as she was asked by P.W.9, about the occurrence, she came out with the version, which is put forth now by the prosecution and which, she reiterated in her dying declaration, Ex.P8 before P, W.8. Therefore, this contention has no merit. 13. The next contention was that the fact that the accused was in the house and left immediately after the occurrence was spoken to by P.W.2, and that further the fact was not put to the accused when he was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. The feci that it was spoken to by P. W.2, alone and not by P.W.1 does not matter very much, inasmuch as P.W.2 is a competent witness and that his evidence was tested by the cross-examination. It is also to be noted that P.W.1 was pre-occupied by the fact of rendering assistance to his sister and therefore, the fact that he did not note that the accused left the house is quite natural. 14. Regarding the contention that the evidence of P.W.2 was not put to the accused under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. it is factually correct. But that does not in any manner vitiate the finding, as under Sec.313, Crl.P.C, as it stands modified now it is not obligatory upon the Court to pur every fact to the accused. The section makes it clear in Sub-sec.(1)(B), that the accused shall be examined by questioning generally on the case. Further, in this case, the accused was defended by an advocate, and as when any piece of evidence was produced, there was a possibility for the accused to cross-examine witnesses. Secondly, it is well-settled law that in case of (sic.) failure to draw the accused’s attention to every inculpatory material, the omission should have caused prejudice to the accused. State of U.P. v. Durga Prasad, 1975 M.L.J. (Crl.) 417. Secondly, it is well-settled law that in case of (sic.) failure to draw the accused’s attention to every inculpatory material, the omission should have caused prejudice to the accused. State of U.P. v. Durga Prasad, 1975 M.L.J. (Crl.) 417. It has not been shown, not even argued that any prejudice was caused to the accused. In fact, it is gathered from the cross-examination that the accused became very much alive to this part of the deposition of P.W.2 and has cross-examined on that point, and that P.W.2 has given sati factory reply. Further, even if prejudice was caused. It is also well settled that such prejudice, arising out of noncompliance of the provisions of Sec.313, Crl.P.C, cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the appellate Court. (Vide Radhakrishnan v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 822). It has not been shown that this point was raised before the trial Court. This contention also fails. 15. The third contention was that the persons who were said to have accompanied Shanthi in the Taxi to the hospital, namely her brother Natarajan, one Venu and Gurumurthi, were not examined. It is explained by the prosecution that these witnesses could not throw any light on the facts relevant to the case and that it was unnecessary to examine them. But the case of the appellant-accused is that those persons could have tutored Shanthi to state that fire was set on her by her husband. We are unable to understand and if these witnesses were examined, they could give such version even if it was true. Secondly, from the case projected by the prosecution there was no animosity in the mind of Shanthi against her husband. She was a devoted wife. She was only worried about the relation of her husband with Thamarai. The very fact that she was worried about that shows that she continued to love her husband. Further, she had two children. Sending her husband to jail unnecessarily would not help the cause of the children and no mother would come out with a false version, which would cause such a disastrous situation to the children. Therefore, we are unable to accept this contention of the appellant-accused. 16. Further, she had two children. Sending her husband to jail unnecessarily would not help the cause of the children and no mother would come out with a false version, which would cause such a disastrous situation to the children. Therefore, we are unable to accept this contention of the appellant-accused. 16. It was further contended that in Exs.P7 and P9 respectively the requsitions for dying declaration and the intimation of the accident to the police, the column ‘alleged cause’ left in blank and that therefore, there was every reason to believe that the house of the accused has been brought in belatedly at the instigation of somebody. It is found that these two documents came in to existence on 1.3.1983 at 11.15 P.M. and that Shanthi reached the hospital at 11.05 P.M. The omission to indicate in the abovesaid documents prepared in a hurry would not affect the cause of the prosecution, because we have got the unambiguous deposition of P.W.5 who deposed that upon arrival at the hospital at 11.05 P.M. of Shanthi, he had been informed that the injuries had been caused on account of her husband setting fire on her with kerosene. That deposition of P.W.5 was not challenged in any manner in the cross-examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that the information given by Shanthi to P.W.9 is an embellishment. That is only a repetition of the version given to the doctor when Shanthi was brought to the hospital. Therefore, the failure to mention the ‘alleged cause’ in Exs.P7 and P9 does not in any manner change the complexion of the case. 17. The last contention was that there was material discrepancy between Exs.P8 and P10. Ex.P8 being the dying declaration and Ex.P10 being the complaint given to P.W.9 both the versions emanating from Shanthi. It is true that as per Ex.P8 Shanthi stated that fire was set on her by her husband, when she was lying down and that in Ex.P10, she stated that she felt the present of kerosene on her saree and that she got up to go out, her husband, put fire on her. Of course, Shanthi was not present at the time of trial to explain this discrepancy. Of course, Shanthi was not present at the time of trial to explain this discrepancy. Taking into account the disturbed state in which she was and the shock and she had sustained, it is quite natural that there is some discrepancy regarding the actual time when fire was put on her. But there is no discrepancy regarding the circumstance when kerosene was poured on her and she has been firm from the beginning till the end in her four declarations, namely, to the doctor P.W.5, to the constable P.W.9, to the Magistrate, P.w.8 and to the investigating officer, P.W.11 that her husband set fire on her. Therefore, we do not consider that this discrepancy is so important as to destroy the case of the prosecution. 18. Taking an over all appraisal of the evidence in this case, we are satisfied that the finding recorded by the Court below is a proper one. There was in fact no reason whatsoever for the wife to implicate wrongly and unjustly her husband as has been pointed out earlier. It is also to be noted that the husband does not come forward with any version of his regarding the death of his wife. 19. In the result, the conviction and sentence are confirmed and the appeal fails and it is dismissed.