JUDGMENT Dr. Da Silva, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th May, 1991 in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1990 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, has convicted the appellant under section 304 Part I of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs 2,000/- or in default to undergo plus 1 year of imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28-6-1990 at about 20.00 hours at Orgao, Loutulim, the appellant poured kerosene on his brother Sebastiao and set fire to him as a result whereof Sebastiao sustained burn injuries and came to die two days later on 30-6-1990 at Margao Hospicio Hospital. The case of the appellant is of a simple denial who said that his deceased brother used to drink heavily and abuse his family members under drunkenness. He was not doing any work and was not even cooking his food. He would go roaming in the village drunk and then come home. In some occasions he used to come to his house but it is false that on 28-6-1990 he had been to his house or that he poured kerosene on him and set fire to him. 3. Shri Aras, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended before us that there is no direct evidence of any eye witness who has deposed that it is the appellant who actually set fire to the deceased after pouring kerosene on him as alleged by the prosecution. The whole evidence on which the learned Sessions Judge has based the appellant's conviction is merely circumstantial evidence and in this respect there is no complete chain of circumstances connecting the death of the deceased to any action of the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that there are many missing links in this chain and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not at all justified in coming to the conclusion that the death of Sebastiao was the result of any act committed by the appellant, namely, on account of his having assaulted the deceased by pouring kerosene and setting fire to him. 4. In order to appreciate this contention of Shri Aras we have gone through the evidence recorded by the prosecution in support of its case. 4. In order to appreciate this contention of Shri Aras we have gone through the evidence recorded by the prosecution in support of its case. Admittedly there is no direct evidence or evidence of any eye witness present on the site at the time of the alleged incident occurred. Therefore with the help of the learned counsel we have scanned the evidence available which consists of the depositions of several witnesses and the panchanama of recovery of the burnt clothes purportedly belonging to the deceased. 5. P.W. 1 Esperanca Fernandes has stated that on the day of the incident at about 10.30 p.m. somebody knocked at the door of her house and when her mother-in-law came to open the door they saw the deceased Sebastiao who told them that the accused had put kerosene and set fire on him. As soon as the door was opened smell of kerosene came inside. She noticed that part of Sebastiao's body was blackened. She remembered clearly that the right side of his face and the neck were blackened. She then brought clothes of her husband and gave them to Sebastiao to wear because his shirt was partially burnt. She also put olive oil on his burns. Then she went to the house of Jose Colaco who is a member of the Panchayat and from there to the house of Elvis who is the nephew of the appellant and the deceased. He immediately made arrangements for a vehicle and brought it to her house and took Sebastiao to the Hospital. In cross-examination the witness reiterated that Sebastiao told all of them that the accused had poured kerosene on him and put fire. She again said that she noticed that the front portion of the shirt was burnt and the pant was wet with kerosene because it was smelling of kerosene. In further cross she stated that their relations with Sebastiao arid accused were very good. Sebastiao came to die in the hospital some days later. 6. This evidence of Esperanca which was not shaken at all in cross-examination is by itself sufficient and enough to prove the case of the prosecution to the effect that the dying declaration purportedly made by the deceased before her and other members of her family has not at all been controverted by the appellant. There is nothing to make us disbelieve the testimony of Esperanca. There is nothing to make us disbelieve the testimony of Esperanca. She is admittedly a neighbour of the deceased and the accused and her deposition inspires confidence. The witnesses has been fair enough to depose with utmost objectivity as an entirely independent witness. The facts stated by her are natural. She had deposed that the deceased came to her house at night time and stated that he had been set on fire by the appellant after pouring kerosene on him. At that time he was showing burn injuries on his body and his clothes were yet smelling of kerosene. The statement made by the deceased to her amounts no doubt to a dying declaration within the meaning of section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. Shri Aras' submission that this statement cannot be equated to a dying declaration because the same was not made before a Doctor or a Magistrate has no merit. Nowhere the law provides that a declaration of this type should be necessarily made before a Magistrate or a Doctor. A mere statement made by a person who subsequently came to die about facts which have ultimately caused his death is no doubt admissible in view of the plain wording of section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. The appellant has not been able to bring anything on record to negative the genuineness either of the statement made by the deceased before P. W. 1 Esperanca or to rebut the credibility of the said witness who has stated that such declaration was made before her by the deceased Sebastiao. Nowhere in the cross-examination there is any suggestion that Sebastiao had not made any statement to her that the burn injuries sustained by him have resulted on account of the appellant having poured kerosene on his body and setting fire on him. 7. The next witness who has deposed on behalf of the prosecution is P.W.2 Elvis Fernandes. He stated that he is nephew of the accused and the deceased. On 28-6-1990 at about 11.00 p.m. Esperanca alongwith Panch, Jose Colaco, and another person came to his house and informed him that Sebastiao was in her home with burn injuries caused by the, appellant. He immediately arranged for a car to take Sebastiao to the hospital. He stated that he is nephew of the accused and the deceased. On 28-6-1990 at about 11.00 p.m. Esperanca alongwith Panch, Jose Colaco, and another person came to his house and informed him that Sebastiao was in her home with burn injuries caused by the, appellant. He immediately arranged for a car to take Sebastiao to the hospital. When he went to Esperanca's house Sebastiao was in the verandah and at that time he noticed burns on his chest and right side of his face and head. He poured some water on his burns and then made him to sit in the car in which he took him to the Hospicio Hospital, Margao. He further stated that there were frequent discussions between the deceased and the appellant after both of them having liquor. Both appellant and Sebastiao used to drink and in many occasions after drinking used to fight. In one occasion the appellant had hit, Sebastiao on the skull with a stool causing serious injuries to him. In cross-examination he said that he and the appellant never spoke with each other but his relations with the deceased were good. To a Court's question he explained that he was not speaking to the appellant because frequently and without any reason the appellant used to utter insults and shouts against his father and mother. He presumed that he did not like to see his parents well off financially. On further cross he said be presumed that Sebastiao was also drunk when he saw him in the verandah because he was smelling of liquor. He also admitted that Sebastiao used to drink heavily although he was not drinking everyday. He further stated that Sebastiao had told him in the hospital that the appellant called him for dinner at his house on the night of the incident, that Sebastiao went there with a half bottle of liquor and after having dinner on account of the liquor which they had taken he fell sleepy and his head started dozing due to sleep. At this stage the appellant poured kerosene on him and set fire to his body. 8. The evidence of this witness also goes to corroborate the testimony of P.W. 1 in all aspects and there is no reason at all to disbelieve him in this regard. At this stage the appellant poured kerosene on him and set fire to his body. 8. The evidence of this witness also goes to corroborate the testimony of P.W. 1 in all aspects and there is no reason at all to disbelieve him in this regard. Elvis has deposed quite fairly and did not even conceal the fact that his relations with the accused were not good although explaining the reason why they were not in speaking terms. However, all the details mentioned by Esperanca in her deposition have been supported by the deposition of Elvis who has seen the deceased with burn injuries in the verandah of Esperanca's house before he took him to the hospital. The said witness has also been fair enough to say that at that time the deceased Sebastiao was smelling of liquor and also disclosed the fact that he sometimes used to drink heavily like the appellant with whom he was having constant quarrels and fights after having drinks. The manner in which this witness who is the nephew of both the appellant as well as of the deceased and with whom he has stated that he was maintaining good relations shows that the said witness is an honest and impartial witness who came to the Court to depose the whole truth. Shri Aras has not been able to say anything to make us discard his testimony. Besides this witness has also stated that Sebastiao has told him about the fact of the appellant having poured kerosene on his body and set fire to him. This is the second dying declaration purportedly made by the deceased before Elvis and the appellant nowhere in cross-examination has denied that such declaration was made by the deceased to the said witness. We are, therefore, satisfied that the deposition of P.W. 1 Esperanca is fully corroborated by the testimony of P.W.2 Elvis Fernandes. 9. The next relevant witness examined by the prosecution is P.W. 3 Joseph Colaco who is a panch witness taken by the police at the time of the panchanama of recovery of the burnt clothes of the deceased. In his deposition he has stated that on 29-6-1990 a Police Officer called him near the house of P.W. 1 Esperanca Fernandes. In the courtyard in front of the house there was a partially burnt shirt lying on the ground. In his deposition he has stated that on 29-6-1990 a Police Officer called him near the house of P.W. 1 Esperanca Fernandes. In the courtyard in front of the house there was a partially burnt shirt lying on the ground. The shirt was attached by the Police Officer. It was a T-shirt of red and blue colour. On lifting the shirt it could be seen that part of it in front was burnt. The said shirt was also smelling of kerosene. The witness identified the shirt as being the same as marked as M.O.1. The shirt was attached under the panchanama marked as Exhibit 16. The deposition of this witness was not challenged at all by the appellant in cross-examination and as such the recovery of this burnt shirt in front of the house of P.W. 1 is another fact strengthening the case of the prosecution and further corroborating the evidence of P.W. 1 Esperanca Fernandes and P.W. 2 Elvis Fernandes. 10. There is also the evidence of P.W. 8 Clerry D'Costa the driver of the car who took the deceased to the hospital. In his deposition he has stated that on 28-6-1990 at about 11.30p.m. Elvis came to his house accompanied by Jose Colaco and told him that Sebastiao was burnt and had to be taken to hospital. Accordingly he went in his car to the house of one lady in the ward Orgao. Sebastiao was in the verandah of his house. He had burns on his chest but he was able to speak. He then took him to the Hospicio Hospital. He further stated that the house belonged to the parents of one Caraciolo Fernandes. The evidence of this witness which was also not shaken by the appellant in the cross-examination is one more link connecting the chain of events in respect of the burn injuries inflicted to the deceased by the appellant by pouring kerosene on his body and setting fire to him. This witness corroborates in this respect the deposition of not only P.W. 1 Esperanca but also of P.W. 2 Elvis who have deposed that the deceased was taken to the hospital by car arranged by Elvis. This witness corroborates in this respect the deposition of not only P.W. 1 Esperanca but also of P.W. 2 Elvis who have deposed that the deceased was taken to the hospital by car arranged by Elvis. At no time the appellant has denied that the deceased was transported in the car belonging to the witness who has also stated that the car was taken by him at the request of P.W.2 Elvis to the house of P.W.1 Esperanca and at that time he saw the deceased with bum injuries on his head and other parts of the body. 11. The next relevant witness examined by the prosecution is P.W.10 Dr. Silvano Sapeco who is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Sebastiao. He has described the injuries found on, the body of Sebastiao after his death which were all burn injuries, namely, the peeling of scalp skin and also on the region of the face, chin, cheeks, neck, right shoulder front up to mid upper arm and front of both sides of anterior chest and on lower right chest front region. Dr. Sapeco has stated that all these have blackened the skin as well as his skin layers with stretch abrasions on neck regions. The said injuries were ante-mortem and caused by the effect of dry heat over the affected body surface area and were of one to three days from the date of death. In his opinion the death was due to toxaemia consequent to the body surface area burns by fire whose cumulative effect had likely led to death. Dr. Sapeco has confirmed the contents of the post-mortem report which is signed by him and also identified the medical certificate shown to him and which bears the signature of Dr. Jaiswal who was familiar to the aforesaid witness in the discharge of his official duties. The said hurt certificate produced on record shows that at the time of his admission in the hospital the deceased was having bum injuries on various regions of his body to the extent of 20%. Jaiswal who was familiar to the aforesaid witness in the discharge of his official duties. The said hurt certificate produced on record shows that at the time of his admission in the hospital the deceased was having bum injuries on various regions of his body to the extent of 20%. The deposition of this witness which was not at all challenged on the material points by the appellant unmistakably establishes not only that the deceased Sebastiao came to the hospital on the material day with burn injuries along his body to the extent of 20% but also that death was ultimately due on account of these injuries. Therefore, the circle of the circumstantial evidence can be perfectly said as being complete and by no manner the appellant was able to challenge the genuineness and veracity of the depositions of the various witnesses for the prosecution who had spoken of the relevant circumstances which have materially substantiated the charge framed against the appellant. 12. It was next contended by Shri Aras that even assuming that the evidence was sufficient to make out a case of assault by the appellant against the deceased Sebastiao by the pouring of kerosene on his body and, thereafter, setting it on fire still there was no ground to convict him for any offence under section 304 of I.P.C. in view of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any intention on his part to cause the death of Sebastiao. Shri Aras has drawn our attention to the finding given by the learned Sessions Judge to the effect that according to the learned Judge serious doubt had arisen in his mind as to whether the appellant had committed an act with the intention of causing death of Sebastiao or with the knowledge that his act would necessarily cause such death. The learned counsel submitted that being so at the most the offence if proved would come within the purview of section 323 of the I.P.C. being thus punishable as an offence of simple injuries. Shri Aras is trying to stretch too much the interpretations of the relevant legal provisions applied in this case. We sincerely believe that Shri Aras does not really mean what he has attempted to submit before us with this regard. Shri Aras is trying to stretch too much the interpretations of the relevant legal provisions applied in this case. We sincerely believe that Shri Aras does not really mean what he has attempted to submit before us with this regard. By no stretch of imagination can one reasonably argue that an act of pouring kerosene on the body of a person and setting it on fire thus resulting in injuries to the person would amount to an offence of simple injuries. Irrespective of the findings of the learned Judge we are of the view that the action of the appellant even considering that he had done so under the influence of liquor or in the state of complete drunkenness would rule out the possibility of the said appellant while committing the offence being totally unoblivious of the fact that the fact by itself was so imminently dangerous that it might, in all probability, cause death of Sebastiao or such bodily injury as likely to cause his death. 13. Further there is no evidence on record to suggest that the drunken condition of the appellant was such that he was not in a position to understand the meaning of the act of pouring kerosene on the body of his brother and setting fire on it. It is true that the prosecution witnesses have spoken to the fact of both the appellant and the deceased being in the habit of indulging in heavy drinking and picking up quarrels after taking liquor. However this fact does not absolve the appellant from the responsibility of the actions committed in the state of intoxication so as to escape the liability for the real offences actually committed by him. However this fact does not absolve the appellant from the responsibility of the actions committed in the state of intoxication so as to escape the liability for the real offences actually committed by him. The learned Sessions Judge on the facts and circumstances of the case has come to the conclusion that there was no definite evidence about the intention of the appellant to cause death within the meaning of section 300 of the I.P.C. and, therefore, has chosen to punish him from the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as provided by section 304 Part I of I.P.C. We are, therefore, satisfied that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be reasonable and somehow justified on the basis of the evidence on record specially bearing in mind that the nature and extent of the injuries point out to the fact that the quantity of kerosene poured by the appellant on the body of the deceased does not appear to be sufficient enough to inflict on him burn injuries to the extent of the same injuries by themselves necessarily leading to his death. Dr. Sapeco has in his deposition clearly stated that the death of Sebastiao occurred due to toxaemia consequent upon the bum injuries suffered by him on his body whose cumulative effect had likely led to his death. On the other hand the seriousness and the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant on his own brother no doubt justifies the amount of the sentence adequately awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere wither on the conviction or on the sentence correctly applied to him by the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 14. The reliance placed by Shri Aras on the decision of Dnyasneshwar v. State of Maharashtra1, is not at all to the point and takes the appellant's case nowhere. That was a case in which the accused who was a neighbour and friendly with the deceased after some quarrels with the deceased gave him a blow on the head, with a small stick weighing just 210 gms. The accused was convicted under section 304 Part II. That was a case in which the accused who was a neighbour and friendly with the deceased after some quarrels with the deceased gave him a blow on the head, with a small stick weighing just 210 gms. The accused was convicted under section 304 Part II. However, in appeal the learned Single Judge has set aside the conviction on the ground that in the circumstances of the case it could not be said that the accused had knowledge that such a blow with a stick of that type would cause death. Ours is a totally different case in which the appellant has poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and set him on fire. In such case it is not permissible to the appellant to say that such an act of setting fire to a person after pouring kerosene on the body is not of his knowledge that the said act may cause his death. Hence the said ruling is not at all attracted in the instant case. 15. In the result we dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment and order dated 14th May, 1991 of the learned Sessions Judge, Margao. Appeal dismissed. 1.1982Cr.L.J.1870 (Distinguished)