JUDGMENT - G.R. MAJITHIA, J. :---The appellant aggrieved from his conviction and sentence for life imprisonment by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed has come up in appeal to this Court. 2. Briefly-stated, the facts leading to the trial of the appellant are as under :-- The appellant is an ex-armyman. Kaushalya was his second wife. He married her ten years prior to her death. Out of this wedlock, he had a son and a daughter. At the time of marriage with her he was posted at Pune. He lived with her at Pune for 3-4 years. Kaushalya gave birth to a daughter Sunita at Pune. He retired from service and returned to his native place Borgaon. He lived with his first wife Kastura, and Kashalya and children at Borgaon for some time. Thereafter, he shifted to Beed. He had a house at Shahunagar, Beed. He resided there with his wives, son Ramesh from his first wife - Kastura and daughter Sunita from his second wife - Kaushalya. Kaushalya gave birth to a son Santhosh while she was residing with the appellant at Shahunagar. There were frequent quarrels between Kaushalya and Kastura. The appellant purchased a plot at Shivajinagar, Beed and constructed a house comprising of two rooms. Kastura and Ramesh were living in the house situated at Shahunagar. He shifted Kaushalya and her children to Shivajinagar and started living with them. Kastura filed proceedings against the appellant for possession of the house situated at Shahunagar. The plot on which this house was constructed was purchased by the appellant in her name in the year, 1976. Kastura initiated proceeding for maintenance (Criminal Application No. 216/1984) against the appellant on August 10, 1984. The same ended in a compromise. The compromise was not sanctioned by the Judicial Magistrate. However, she did not prosecute the application. 3. The appellant used to illtreat Kaushalya at the instance of Kastura. Kaushalya used to inform about the illtreatment to Rajendra Jadhavar, Advocate practising at Aurangabad, her maternal uncle through letters and telegrams. He also used to visit Kaushalya on receipt of those letters and telegrams. The appellant felt annoyed over the conduct of Kaushalya for informing Rajendra Jadhavar about the illtreatment. 4. The appellant was running a grocery shop at Shivajinagar. He was also a property dealer. He let out one room in his house situated at Shivajinagar to Vinayak and Bapu. He also used to visit Kaushalya on receipt of those letters and telegrams. The appellant felt annoyed over the conduct of Kaushalya for informing Rajendra Jadhavar about the illtreatment. 4. The appellant was running a grocery shop at Shivajinagar. He was also a property dealer. He let out one room in his house situated at Shivajinagar to Vinayak and Bapu. Gulab Pradhan, a police constable, is the maternal uncle of Vinayak and Bapu. On his transfer to Beed in 1987, he started residing with his nephews. His wife and daughter Mina joined him subsequently. The appellant developed intimacy with Mina. Baliram saw the appellant and Mina roaming about in the city. Kaushalya came to know of this illicit intimacy between them. She informed about this intimacy to Rukhminibai, Ankush and Rajendra. She impressed upon the appellant to drive out Mina from the house. He was deeply involved with Mina and this led to the illtreatment of Kaushalya. 5. On March 10, 1988, Kaushalya came to Rajendra Jadhavar at Aurangabad with her children. He found them neglected and forlorn. He provided them with some clothes and sent them to Rukhminibai at Bangarwadi. Kaushalya and her children resided there for a fortnight. The appellant went to Bangarwadi to bring back Kaushalya, but she declined. The appellant promised to transfer his house at Sivajinagar to Kaushalya. Rukhminibai sent Kaushalya and her children with the appellant to Beed. Ankush (brother of Kaushalya) also came with them. 6. On May 13, 1988, Baliram visited Kaushalya. He stayed with her for the night at her house. He saw Mina in the house. He also saw television, utensils and other articles of the appellant in the room occupied by her. Mina and the appellant were not allowing Kaushalya to use the same. The appellant and Kaushalya were quarrelling in the house throughout the day. During the night intervening May 13 and 14, 1988, at about 1.00 a.m., the appellant raised wooden plank to hit Kaushalya, Baliram restrained him. He slept during the night outside. In the morning of May 14, 1988, the appellant was watering the new construction. Their children were sleeping inside the room. He abused Kaushalya. Thereafter, he followed her. He poured kerosene oil on her person. Some kerosene oil fell on the sleeping children. He set Kaushalya and children aflame. Kaushalya came out in that condition. In the morning of May 14, 1988, the appellant was watering the new construction. Their children were sleeping inside the room. He abused Kaushalya. Thereafter, he followed her. He poured kerosene oil on her person. Some kerosene oil fell on the sleeping children. He set Kaushalya and children aflame. Kaushalya came out in that condition. Gulab Pradhan heard shouts "Aag Aag" and came out of his room and saw Kaushalya in a burning state. Baliram also saw her in that state. Gulab brought Kaushalya and her children in the Fire-Brigade van to the Civil Hospital, Beed and got them admitted there. The appellant also sustained burn injuries on his right hand at the time of the incident. Police Head Constable - Mohd. Zafar was on duty at Police Post Civil Hospital. He arranged for recording the dying declaration of Kaushalya and Sunita. Santosh died at about 8.10 a.m. Shri Laxmikant Magare, Special Judicial Magistrate, recorded the dying declarations of Kaushalya and Sunita. Head Constable Mohd. Zafar registered offence against the appellant under sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the dying declarations. Kaushalya and Sunita succumbed to death before noon. 7. The prosecution examined Rajendra Jadhavar, Ankush, Rukhminibai, Baliram, Bhange, Gulab Pradhan, Mina, Magare - Special Judicial Magistrate, Mohd. Zafar, panch witnesses - Bhagwan and Annasaheb, Dr. Chapalgaonkar, Dr. Pawar, Dr. Dhaytadak, Dr. Jadhav, Dr. Gaikwad, police constable Gunjal, P.S.I. Ghuge, C.P.I. Kulkarni and P.S.I. Pawar. Gulab Pradhan, Mina and C.P.I. Kulkarni were cross-examined by the prosecution. 8. The learned trial Judge relying on the dying declaration held that the prosecution had proved that the appellant set Kaushalya on fire and these burn injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. He also held that the appellant caused the death of Santosh and Sunita while he was causing bodily injuries to Kaushalya, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. He ruled out the possibility of Kaushalya, Sunita and Santosh succumbing to accidental burn injuries. He also held that Kaushalya did not attempt suicide. 9. Before we deal with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, we think it proper to deal with the veracity of the dying declaration of Kaushalya, which is the basis of recording conviction of the appellant. The dying declaration Ex. 47 is in marathi script. He also held that Kaushalya did not attempt suicide. 9. Before we deal with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, we think it proper to deal with the veracity of the dying declaration of Kaushalya, which is the basis of recording conviction of the appellant. The dying declaration Ex. 47 is in marathi script. English translation of the same reads thus : "My name is Sow. Kaushalyabai w/o Uttamrao Sangle, age 40 years, Since last one month quarrels were taking place in my house. On 21-22 April, my husband brought me at Palwan road from my parents house. Yesterday in the night hours quarrel took place in between me and my husband. My husband had taken a wooden plank to beat me. It was about 1 to 2 a.m. Myself, my two children i.e. one son and one daughter were sleeping inside the house. In the morning my husband Uttamrao was pouring water on the constructed portion. My husband was having (illicit) relations with the daughter of constable Pradhan. He had kept her in our house only. In the morning my husband threw abuses on me and while pouring water, he at 6.30 hours, followed me and he poured kerosene on my person. My both children were sleeping in the house and therefore, kerosene fell on their persons also. After pouring kerosene, my husband threw a match stick on my person and put me on fire. Before this incident, I had lodged a complaint about the quarrels with the co-wife of my husband. As I was set on fire, I sustained burns and also my children sustained burns. Due to this all parts of my body including mouth, hands, cheek, legs and thighs have burnt. When I was crying loudly, the constable Pradhan came there and he brought me in the hospital. This statement is recorded as per my version and is read over to me. This is correct." The dying declaration was recorded by Shri Laxmikant Magare, Special Judicial Magistrate. He stated that on May 14, 1988, he received a letter of request at 8.00 a.m. from Police Station, Beed. He made endorsement on that letter and immediately thereafter went to Civil Hospital, Beed. He recorded statement of Sunita, who was in burnt condition, after Dr. Gaikwad had certified that she was in a fit condition to make statement. He stated that on May 14, 1988, he received a letter of request at 8.00 a.m. from Police Station, Beed. He made endorsement on that letter and immediately thereafter went to Civil Hospital, Beed. He recorded statement of Sunita, who was in burnt condition, after Dr. Gaikwad had certified that she was in a fit condition to make statement. He also satisfied himself that Sunita was mentally fit to give her statement. After recording statement of Sunita, he recorded the statement of Kaushalya. The doctor had told him that Kaushalya was conscious and mentally fit to give her statement. After satisfying himself that Kaushalya was conscious and mentally fit to give her statement, he recorded her statement and obtained her thumb impression on it. Dr. Gaikwad made an endorsement on the statement that Smt. Kaushalya was fully conscious for giving her statement. In his cross-examination, veracity of his statement could not be shaken. He gave detail description of the manner in which he recorded the dying declaration. The statement was recorded as was narrated by Smt. Kaushalya. The statement made in the dying declaration receives corroboration. In her statement, she has stated that she had lodged a complaint about the quarrels with the co-wife of the appellant. F.I.R. Ex. 83 was registered against Kastura under sections 323 and 504 Indian Penal Code. The xerox copy of this entry is at Ex. 83. It was not denied by the appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that there used to be quarrels between Kastura and Kaushalya. The proof of the filing of the F.I.R. corroborates the statement in the dying declaration of Kaushalya that she had quarrels with the co-wife of the appellant. Rajendra Jadhavar, witness No. 20, in his evidence corroborated the statement regarding illicit connection with Mina and that Kaushalya was brought by the appellant from her parents house. 10. Rajendra Jadhavar gave vivid account of the treatment meted out to Kaushalya at the hands of the appellant. The evidence of this witness reveals that the appellant started illtreating Kaushalya after the birth of her son Santosh. She used to write to him as and when the situation became uncontrollable. He admitted the correctness of the letters, which were received by him from Kaushalya from time to time. He also admitted having received telegrams sent by the appellant and Kaushalya. She used to write to him as and when the situation became uncontrollable. He admitted the correctness of the letters, which were received by him from Kaushalya from time to time. He also admitted having received telegrams sent by the appellant and Kaushalya. The appellant also sent false message through telegram that Kaushalya had died. On receipt of this telegram, the witness used to come to the residence of Kaushalya and would confront the appellant with the contents of those telegrams. He deposed that a month prior to the incident Kaushalya with her children came to him at Aurangabad. She was beaten by the appellant and she was wearing torn clothes. He gave her clothes. Kaushalya and her children stayed for 9-10 days with him and thereafter he sent them to Bangarwadi. The appellant went to Bangarwadi and persuaded mother of Kaushalya to let her return to her consortium. The mother of Kaushalya agreed. Kaushalya with her children returned to Beed. The statement in the dying declaration that the appellant brought the deceased to Beed from her parents house also receives corroboration from the evidence of Rukhminibai - mother of the deceased, Rajendra also deposed that on receipt of letter Ex. 72 from the deceased, he went to the house of the appellant, situated at Palwan road, Beed. He saw Mina Pradhan living in the house of the appellant. He asked the appellant as to why he was keeping her in his house. In response to this query, the appellant retorted that he was able to maintain two wives and he would keep Mina also in the house and this should not be cause of worry to the witness. The relevant portion of the witness statement reads thus : "I had asked accused as to why he kept Mina in his house and his (accuseds) behaviour is not good. At the same time I had told the father of Mina that they should leave the room of the accused. Accused had kept Mina Pradhan in his house as a keep. On this P.C. Pradhan said to me that rented house is not available at that time and soon after he got house, he would leave the room of the accused. Accused Uttam Sangle said that he is able to maintain two wives and, therefore, he would keep Mina in his house and why I should worry for that. On this P.C. Pradhan said to me that rented house is not available at that time and soon after he got house, he would leave the room of the accused. Accused Uttam Sangle said that he is able to maintain two wives and, therefore, he would keep Mina in his house and why I should worry for that. At that time Kaushalya told me that accused had illicit relations of husband and wife with Mina and, therefore, Kaushalya had danger to her life." The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by the defence. But this part of the statement was not specifically challenged in the cross-examination. 11. Mina appeared as witness No. 15 for the prosecution. She resisted from her statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer. She was allowed to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. She stated that on the date of her deposition, she was 21 years of age and had two sons, aged 11 and 5 years. Her husband was a weaver and she had come to Beed to appear in the 7th standard examination. She along with her cousins were living in a room as tenants. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant portion from her statement in extenso, which reads as under : "Prior to my coming to stay in the room of Kirana Shop, Kaushalya was living in the room of Kirana shop and also adjoining room. It is not correct to say that I had not slept upto 1.30 to 2.00 a.m. It is not correct to say that T.V. was in my room and on that night I saw T.V. programmes upto 11.00 p.m. It is not correct to say during the relevant night there was quarrel between the accused and Kaushalya and accused had tried to beat Kaushalya. 15 days prior to the incident, Kaushalya had come back from house of her parents. Accused Uttam Sangle and brother of Kaushalya, Ankush had brought Kaushalya at Beed. It is not correct to say that I offered tea and water to the brother of Kaushalya. One month prior to the incident, Kaushalya had gone either to Aurangabad or to her parents house. I know the maternal uncle of Kaushalya, who was called before the Court and who is advocate at Aurangabad. He is advocate Jadhavar. It is not correct to say that I offered tea and water to the brother of Kaushalya. One month prior to the incident, Kaushalya had gone either to Aurangabad or to her parents house. I know the maternal uncle of Kaushalya, who was called before the Court and who is advocate at Aurangabad. He is advocate Jadhavar. Adocate Jadhavar did not come in my presence at Beed. It is true that advocate Jadhavar had come once at the house of the accused. It is not correct to say that advocate Jadhavar asked accused as to why he sent telegram saying that "Kaushalya expired" in my presence. It is not correct to say that in absence of Kaushalya, I was looking after the whole affairs of Kirana shop during the period of one month. It is not correct to say I used to sit in the Kirana shop even in the presence of Kaushalya. It is not correct to say that the watch which was with me was of Kaushalya. It is not correct to say that accused Sangale gave me some articles. It is not correct to say that I was living in the room, where the T.V. and Kirana shop were there. It is not correct to say that accused Sangale gave me the T.V. and Kirana shop. It is not correct to say that accused Sangale gave me Saree, watch and utensils. I had no enmity with Kaushalya. I had also no quarrel with her. We were on talking terms with each other. I cannot assign any reason as to why I did not ask Kaushalya how she burnt. It is not correct to say that soon after I entered in the house of accused, there used to be quarrel between accused and his wife Kaushalya. I and accused Sangale used to talk with each other, while wandering and also in the house in respect of utensils.. It is not correct to say that I used to go to attend cinema with accused Sangale and also used to wander with him in the city. It is not correct to say that my relation with accused was as husband and wife. The say of Kaushalya that my relations with accused were of illicit relations as husband wife is false. Police recorded my statement twice." A close scrutiny of her evidence and of witnesses Nos. It is not correct to say that my relation with accused was as husband and wife. The say of Kaushalya that my relations with accused were of illicit relations as husband wife is false. Police recorded my statement twice." A close scrutiny of her evidence and of witnesses Nos. 16 and 20, Rukhminibai and Rajendra Jadhavar will indicate that her relationship with the appellant was other than that of a tenant or tenants daughter living in the house of a landlord. She was running the shop of the appellant and also was residing in the room of the shop. The facts stated by her in her statement can lead to an inference that her relationship with the appellant was not of a normal type. Witnesses Nos. 20 and 16 had stated that the deceased had complained to them that the appellant was having illicit relation with Mina witness No. 15. The appellant brought the deceased from her parents house in the last week of April, 1988. He might have given an assurance to the deceased and her parents that he would remove the cause of acrimony between the deceased and him. On the assurance given, the deceased returned to her marital home, but on arrival there, she found that Mina was living in the house of the appellant and sleeping in the room of the shop. When she objected, the appellant subjected her to illtreatment, which ultimately resulted in the incident. The evidence of witnesses Nos. 15, 16 and 20 corroborates the statement of the deceased in dying declaration that she was brought back by the appellant to her parents house on April 21/ 22, 1988 and that her husband had illicit relations with the daughter of police constable - Pradhan. Thus, the statement in the dying declaration that the deceased had lodged a complaint about the quarrel she had with the co-wife of the appellant; that she was brought back by the appellant from her parents house on April 21/22, 1988 and that the appellant had kept the daughter of a police constable in his house and was having illicit relation with her, receives corroboration from independent evidence. We have examined the statements of witnesses Nos. 16 and 20. Witness No. 20 is an advocate by profession and a close relation of the deceased and so is witness No. 16, who is the mother of the deceased. We have examined the statements of witnesses Nos. 16 and 20. Witness No. 20 is an advocate by profession and a close relation of the deceased and so is witness No. 16, who is the mother of the deceased. Their evidence inspires confidence and rings true. 12. The Apex Court in (Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay)1, reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 22, laid down the following test of reliable dying declaration : "(1) That it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated; (2) That each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made; (3) That it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence; (4) That a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; (5) That a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character; and (6) That in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the Court has to keep in view, the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated, had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties." The facts and the inference drawn from the proved facts stated supra broadly satisfy the test laid down by the Apex Court in Khushalraos case. 13. 13. In (Lallubhai Devchand Shah and others v. The State of Gujrat)2, reported in A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court, 1776, the Apex Court held thus : "If the Court is satisfied on a close scrutiny of the dying declaration that it is truthful it is open to the Court to convict the accused on its basis without any independent corroboration." In the instant case, after close examination of the evidence, we find that the dying declaration is true. 14. The defence version has been rightly discounted by the trial Judge. On scrutiny of evidence brought on record, we find it is concoction. 15. Now, the stage is set to deal with the submissions by the learned Counsel for the appellant. He submitted thus : (i) Laxmikant Magare, Special Judicial Magistrate, witness No. 8, who recorded the dying declaration did not record the statement of the doctor that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the statement. He further stated that the deceased was not in a fit condition to make the statement; (ii) Prosecution witness No. 17 - Gulab Pradhan, police constable and witness No. 15 - Mina were declared as hostile witness an their evidence casts doubt on the prosecution version. (iii) The articles recovered from the spot were not sent for chemical analysis by the prosecution; and (iv) The clothes on the person of the deceased had no smell of kerosene oil. 16. Witness No. 13 - Chandrakant (Dr/ C.A. Gaikwad) deposed that on May 14, 1988, he opined that the mental condition of Kaushalya wife of Uttam Sangale and Sunita was sound and their statements could be recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate. His statement reads thus: "On 14-5-1988 dying declaration of Kaushalya was recorded by Spl. Judicial Magistrate - Shri Magare. I also attended Sunita d/o Uttam Sangle on that date. The dying declaration of Sunita was also recorded on that day by Shri Magare...... I gave certificate of Sunita by way of endorsement about the consciousness and mental condition of Sunita. Endorsement is in my hand and signed by me. On 14-5-1988 I gave endorsement about the consciousness and mental condition of Kaushalya w/o Uttam Sangale. The endorsement is in my hand and is signed by me. I gave certificate of Sunita by way of endorsement about the consciousness and mental condition of Sunita. Endorsement is in my hand and signed by me. On 14-5-1988 I gave endorsement about the consciousness and mental condition of Kaushalya w/o Uttam Sangale. The endorsement is in my hand and is signed by me. Purna Shuddhiwar Ahe means deceased Kaushalya was completely, mentally and physically conscious and fit to give statement." To the same effect is the evidence of witness No. 8 - Laxmikant. He deposed that he satisfied himself that Sunita and Kaushalya were in fit mental condition to make the statement. The evidence of witness Nos. 8 and 13 amply establishes that Kaushalya and Sunita were in fit mental condition to make the statement. In the light of this unimpeachable evidence, it cannot be said that the deceased were not in a fit mental condition to give the statement. The deceased were administered some injections to relieve them of the pain. The effect of these injections does not weaken the mental faculties of the patient or make them unconscious or semi-conscious. Drowsiness does not mean unconsciousness. In the light of the evidence of these two witnesses, we have got no hesitation to hold that the deceased were fully conscious when their statements were recorded. The learned Counsel for the appellant laid considerable stress on the evidence of Dr. Prabhakar, witness No. 12. He was posted as Medical Officer, District Hospital Beed. He examined Kaushalya, on May 14, 1988. In his cross-examination he stated that on enquiry from the patient, he wrote on the history sheet that it was a case of "accidental burn". From this statement learned Counsel wants us to draw an inference that the version given in dying declaration recorded by Shri Laxmikant witness No. 8 Special Judicial Magistrate, regarding the occurrence was not genuine. The evidence of Dr. Prabhakar is not inspiring confidence. According to him the patient was examined by Dr. Unhale, at 7.10 a.m. and again at 7.30 a.m. Dr. Unhale, examined the patient in the first instance and suggested treatment and thereafter the patient was shifted to the female ward where, she was examined by Dr. Chandrakant - witness No. 13. The history sheet is prepared when the patient is examined by the Doctor in the Hospital in the first instance. Dr. Unhale, examined the patient in the first instance and suggested treatment and thereafter the patient was shifted to the female ward where, she was examined by Dr. Chandrakant - witness No. 13. The history sheet is prepared when the patient is examined by the Doctor in the Hospital in the first instance. Dr. Prabhakar examined the patient as stated by him at 10 a.m. after she had already been examined by Dr. Chandrakant and Dr. Unhale. The cause of burn injury was to be recorded by Dr. Unhale, who examined Kaushalya in the first instance, or by Dr. Chandrakant who examined her after Dr. Unhale. Both of them have not stated that the patient told them that it was a case of "accidental burn". They did not record in the history sheet that it was a case of "accidental burn." Further Dr. Prabhakar, in his examination-in-chief stated that he has suggested that the dying declaration of the patient be recorded. It will be useful to record the relevant portion of his statement in examination-in-chief. "I attended patient at 8.10 a.m. I had suggested treatment and also examined the patient. I had noted down my suggestion and treatment in the case paper. I suggested that dying declaration of the patient be recorded." If it was a case of accidental burn as stated by him in the cross-examination he would not have suggested recording of dying declaration. To us it appears that Dr. Prabhakar has made improvements in the cross-examination that he had recorded on the history sheet that it was a case of "accidental burn" for some ulterior motive. Apart from this, in his examination-in-chief Dr. Prabhakar has stated that the patient was pathetic and drowsy. If this was the condition of the patient it appears to be improbable that the patient was in a condition to state the manner in which injuries were sustained. It appears to be more probable that when the patient reached the hospital, she was administered some medicine and thereafter, she was slightly relieved of pains and she was declared fit for recording the statement by the Judicial Magistrate. 17. The evidence of prosecution witnesses declared hostile cannot be rejected in toto and cannot be brushed aside. It appears to be more probable that when the patient reached the hospital, she was administered some medicine and thereafter, she was slightly relieved of pains and she was declared fit for recording the statement by the Judicial Magistrate. 17. The evidence of prosecution witnesses declared hostile cannot be rejected in toto and cannot be brushed aside. In (Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka)3, reported in A.I. R. 1979 Supreme Court 1848, the Apex Court observed thus : "As a legal proposition, it is now settled by the decisions of this Court, that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected wholesale, merely on the ground that the prosecution had dubbed him hostile and cross-examined him." The evidence of witness No. 15 - Mina cannot be discarded in toto. When her evidence is read in correct perspective, it lends credance to the statement in the dying declaration of Kaushalya and that she was the cause of the ghastly crime commited by the appellants. 18. Witness No. 3 - Bhagwan witnessed the panchnama prepared by the prosecution of the scene of occurrence. Articles 1 to 17 (clothes) earth were taken in possession. These were smelling kerosene. The walls, door frames, planks had blackened due to smoke. Tin sheets of the room had also become blackish due to smoke. It is correct that these articles were not sent for chemical analysis but the evidence of panch witnesses and the investigating inspector proves that because of extensive fire the room and articles lying therein were burnt. This evidence discounts the theory of accidental fire and leads assistance to the prosecution version that the deceased were put to fire. In the light of this evidence, the submission of the learned Counsel is not sustainable. 19. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. *****