JUDGMENT Tipnis, J.- This appeal assails the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the alleged commission of the, offences punishable under Sections 302 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Deceased Kashibai was the daughter of Piraji Bhiva Khude of Godoli, Taluka and Distt. Satara. Her only living, relation form the parental side on the date of the occurrence was P.W. 9 Jagarinath, a labourer by profession. Twenty-two years prior to 1986, Kashibai was wedded to appellant. The couple had four children-three being daughters and the youngest being a son Arun who has been eained as P.W. 6. The appellant was working as a Peon in the I.T.I. at Karad. Saidapur is a suburb of Karad. The College afore-mentioned as also its hostel and a chawl owned by P.W. 5 Nivas are all at Saidapur. In Niva's chawl there were five apartments. One of these i.e. the one at the westernmost extreme was in the occupation of the appellant as a tenant. The location of the chawl and the I.T.I. building, etc., are shown with sufficient precision in the map at Exhibit II. 3. The appellant was addicted to serveral vices including womanising and drinking. The vices left him little money with which to look after, his wife and Arun. Fortunately, the three daughters had been married and they were no longer a burden on the appellant. To make ends meet,. Kashibai took up employment as a maidservant. Evil habits gave rise to evil company and the appellant had become intimate with evil men and women. Two of the ladies with whom he had developed illicit relations were Munda and Bani. To keep these ladies happy, the appellant was not only indulging in drink and other nefarious activities but was also abusing and beating Kashibai. On 31-1-86 the appellant came drunk to his apartment at about 9 to 10 p.m. Kashibai was then sleeping in the home with Arun. As was common with the appellant, he first abused his wife. When she protested, he took over a bottle containing kerosene and poured the liquid on the lady. Quick in succession, he took a match-box from his pocket and lit the inflammable Kashibai. As if this was not enough, the appellant went out and latched the door of the apartment form outside. The hue and cry raised by Kashibai brought the neighbours running to the spot. Quick in succession, he took a match-box from his pocket and lit the inflammable Kashibai. As if this was not enough, the appellant went out and latched the door of the apartment form outside. The hue and cry raised by Kashibai brought the neighbours running to the spot. These included the inmates of the I.T.I. hostel. The appellant was forced to unlatch the door of the apartment and the burning Kashibai came out. Somewhat sobered, the appellant aided in putting out the fire. Eventually, the fire was stamped out by the wrapping of a quilt on the person of the burning lady. A rickshaw was fetched and in it the appellant Kashibai and Arun went to the Cottage Hospital at Karad. Here Dr. Patil examined the lady and immediately phoned the Karad Town Police Station in regard to the serious condition of Kashibai. The case was one of near about 70 per cent bums. Within ten minutes arrived Head Constable P.W.10 Shantaram Sapkal. Satisfied by Dr. Patil that the patient was in possession of her senses and capable of making a statement. Sapkal questioned the lady. The statement which she gave was recorded by Sapkal at Exhibit 25. Every minute, the condition of the lady was worsening. Word was sent to an Executive Magistrate to come expeditiously and recorded her dying declaration. The Executive Magistrate L.R. Path responded and the dying declaration recorded by him is at Exhibit 25. At 4 a.m. on 1-2-1986 Kashibai passed away and the post mortem examination on the corpse was performed on 2-2-1986 by Dr. Salunkhe. His notes are at exhibit 32. The appellant had been arrested near about 4 p.m. On his person were found a packet of bidis and a match-box. There were attached. There were bum marks on the hands of the appellant for which reason he also was sent to the Cottage hospital at Karad. The medical officer there found on the person of the appellant signs of burging. The certificate drawn up on that occasion is at exhibit 39. Having regard to the great distance of time between the occurence and 12 noon on 1-2-86 when the appellant was examined, he naturally showed no signs of having consumed or being under the influence of alcohol. The negative certificate to that effect is at Exhibit 44. The certificate drawn up on that occasion is at exhibit 39. Having regard to the great distance of time between the occurence and 12 noon on 1-2-86 when the appellant was examined, he naturally showed no signs of having consumed or being under the influence of alcohol. The negative certificate to that effect is at Exhibit 44. The investigation completed, a charge-sheet was put up, and, after the usual committal proceedings the appellant found himself in the dock before the Sessions Judge at Satara. 4. To the charge of having killed his wife by burning, the appellant pleaded not guilty. It was not correct to say that the relations between him and Kashibai were strained or that he was given to vices like drinking, womanising or squandering money. What had happened was, that, on the night of 31-1-1986 he, his wife and Arun took dinner where after he went out for purchasing a paan. Within 20 minutes he heard Arun wailling. This brought him running to his house when he saw his wife in flames. It was he who stamped out the fire and hurriedly took Kashibai to the cottage Hospital. At about 11.30 that night he was arrested. Arun informed him that Kashibai had caught fire while warming some edible. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses including Ahmad, Anwarbi, Nivas, Arun, Ramesh, Prakash, Jagnnath, Head Constable Sapkal, Magistrate L.R. Patil, Dr. Salunkhe and PSI Jadhav. Their evidence over the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 when he came out with the answers summarised above. The Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for three months. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the State have been heard The former assails the judgment under appeal while the latter supports it. Mr. Madbhavi contends that there is no eye-witness to the crime and that case rests entirely upon two dying declarations. These declarations were given after the administration of pethidine to the patient. This drug has the effect of rendering the patient unconscious within no time. Mr. Madbhavi contends that there is no eye-witness to the crime and that case rests entirely upon two dying declarations. These declarations were given after the administration of pethidine to the patient. This drug has the effect of rendering the patient unconscious within no time. At the least the patient becomes delirious and not in a position to control his or her senses and words. The case papers at Exhibit 30 are relied upon by the learned Counsel to point out that pethidine was administered to Kashibai very soon after her arrival at the Cottage Hospital. The hour of arrival at the hospital is recorded in exhibit 30 and it is 11.05 p.m. The treatment must have begun almost immediately after the preliminary questioning and the phone call put in by Dr. Patil to the Karad Town Police Station. Dr. Patil himself has not been questioned to elicit an answer about the deadly effects of pethidine as is argued by Mr. Madbhavi learned Counsel contends that we can take judicial notice of the effects of pethidine. He has referred us to certain observation in V. Yedukondalu v. State of AP.1 It is not possible to agree with the submission advanced by the learned Counsel. We know of no well-known proposition such as the one advanced by Mr. Madbhavi. In the present case, Kashibai had suffered bums. These had affected 75 per cent of her body. The very condition in which she was must have made it impossible for the sedative to work instantaneously. The two dying declaration relied upon by the prosecution were recorded within an hour or two from 11.05 a.m. Mr. Madbhavi refers us to type word "yesterday" occurring in Exhibit 25 as evidence of delirium having set in. But the word "yesterday" is followed by the date which is correctly stated as "31-1-1986". A small slip of the nature mentioned above would not render Exhibit 25 suspect. It was argued by the Counsel that the pain in which Kashibai was, renders it highly improbable that she would give such detailed an account as is to be found in Exts. 25 28. A small slip of the nature mentioned above would not render Exhibit 25 suspect. It was argued by the Counsel that the pain in which Kashibai was, renders it highly improbable that she would give such detailed an account as is to be found in Exts. 25 28. To take up the first dying declaration, it speaks of Kashibai getting married to the appellant 22 years ago, how the quarrel started on the night of 31-1-1986, how Kashibai was set on fire by the appellant, why the appellant was behaving so badly with her and what had happended after the occurrence, etc. etc. The details themselves furnish proof against any tutoring or concoction. Exhibit 25 refers to matters which could not have been known to a stranger. In regard to Exhibit 23, the criticism of Mr. Madbhavi is that it has not been recorded in question and answer form. But this again is a small infirmity which far from discrediting either Kashibai or the scribe, lends an assurance about the genuii1ess of the dying declaration. Significantly, there is an identity in the two dying declaration vis-a-vis the material particulars. Much is made of the Executive Magistrate not sending Exhibit 28 to the Police Station and producing it at the time his statement was recorded in court. This would prove no more than that the Executive Magistrate is not fully conversant with what has to be done in such cases. But assuming that the two dying declarations are for some reason untrustworthy, there is still the unrecorded dying declaration of Kashibai consisting in the form of the accusation she levelled against the appellant immediately after the occurrence. True a large number of witnesses such as Ahmad, Anwarbi, Nivas, Arun and Ramesh have turned hostile. That this has happened is not to be wondered. Ahmad, Anwarbi and Nivas are neighbours of the appellant. Their sympathies for the appellant are understandable for after all their primary loyalty would be to the appellant rather than the lady Kashibai. But even if that be not so, there is the possibility of Arun's condition swaying them. Arun's mother is the victim of the crime and sending his father to a lifetime exile will adversely affect the child's future. Possibly this motive explains the deviation of the witnesses from the truth. As to Arun, he seems to be a remarkable child. But even if that be not so, there is the possibility of Arun's condition swaying them. Arun's mother is the victim of the crime and sending his father to a lifetime exile will adversely affect the child's future. Possibly this motive explains the deviation of the witnesses from the truth. As to Arun, he seems to be a remarkable child. Despite his -mother having been set on fire by his father, his loyalty to the father remains unshaken. This is not unnatural for one placed in the position of Arun. The only way he can retrieve the loss is by somehow trying to shield the father. That is why Arun has come out with obliging answers of how his mother caught fire. The story given out is that while his mother was warming the left over mutton which the family had consumed that night, her clothes caught fire. This was because the wood in the grate was damp and to make the fire going, Kashibai had to pour kerosene on the damp logs. In so doing, her sari caught fire and despite the efforts of the appellant, Kashibai was enveloped in flames and became unconscious. The father did everything that could have been expected of him but to no avail. Never had his parents quarreled. If all this be true, there was no reason for the dying Kashibai to accuse her husband of drunkenness, wasteful habits, evil company, womanising and arson. Ramesh who has followed the evil example of his elders should be ashamed of himself. He is a student residing in the IT.I hostel and the only explanation one can think: of for his performance, is, his sympathy for the appellant who was peon in a College. But the truth has come out from P.W. 8 Prakash. He speaks of coming to the scene attracted there by the commotion and the attempt being made to put out the flames on the person of Kashibai. Kashibai herself was shouting about the fire on her person being the handiwork of the appellant. Cross-examined at some length, Prakash has remained unshaken. We see no reason to disbelive him. That there existed a great deal of bitterness between the suposes has been spoken of by Kashibai' s brother P.W. 9 Jagannath. Since years prior to her death, Kashibai had been complaining of the misdeeds of the appellant. Cross-examined at some length, Prakash has remained unshaken. We see no reason to disbelive him. That there existed a great deal of bitterness between the suposes has been spoken of by Kashibai' s brother P.W. 9 Jagannath. Since years prior to her death, Kashibai had been complaining of the misdeeds of the appellant. Attempts on the part of Jagannath to make the appellant mend his ways were of no avail. The version given by Jagannath bears out the recitals pertaining to the motive in the dying declaration at Exhibits 25 and 28. One more piece of evidence which goes against the appellant and which he tried to refute is the finding of a match-box on his person. As a smoker, he would naturally be in possession of a match-box. But realising that this could cause trouble, the appellant denied that the match-box and the bundle of bidis had been seized from him. This is a case of protesting too much and thus giving rise to the inference of a guilty conscience. All aspects considered, we concur with the view of the Sessions Judge that the charge of murder and wrong confinement was satisfactorily established against the appellant. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed 1. 1988 Crl. LJ. 1538.