JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant Under section 302 Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, the conviction of rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Brief narration of the facts are that on 27.12.1991 an oral First Information Report (FIR) was lodged in Police Station, Danpur at 10 p.m. by Smt. Poonji deceased that her husband Chhotia in the morning at about 8 went to the house of Motiya Bhai for electrical work but not returned back and, therefore, she went and fetched him at about 8. p.m. On his return, she had reminded him of the breaking of the radio and moving of the light yesterday and on that he lost his tamper and in a drunken state, sprinkled kerosene on her and lit the fire. On seeing her burning, he tried to extinguish the fire and in the process, received some injuries on the hand. The FIR Ex. P/17 dated 27.12.1991 was recorded by PW 12 Mangi Lal. Thereafter the deceased was sent to M.G.H. Hospital, Banswara. There she succumbed to her injuries on 31.12.1991 at 11.40 p.m. The deceased dying declaration was recorded on 28.12.1991 at 1.15 a.m. i.e. after 3.15 hours of the lodging of the FIR. The dying declaration was recorded by PW 12 Mangi Lal, Station House Officer, in the presence of PW 11 Dr. R.C. Goyal. The dying declaration Ex. P/16 is similar to that of the FIR. 3. After the death, the autopsy was conducted by PW 11 Dr. R.C. Goyal and he found the following injuries:- "Burns on rt arm posterior side, whole of anterior left chest, abdomen & back of chest & abdomen, left upper limb excluding lower half forearm & hand, left thigh ant & post, rt thigh anterior side. Skin peeled off on above mentioned burnt areas." The cause of death given by the doctor is extensive burn, shock-burn is ante-mortem. The accused-appellant was also examined by PW 11 Dr. R.C. Goyal and he found injuries on his hands. The report by the doctor is Ex. P/14. The conviction of the appellant is based on the sole evidence of dying declaration. 4. The accused-appellant was also examined by PW 11 Dr. R.C. Goyal and he found injuries on his hands. The report by the doctor is Ex. P/14. The conviction of the appellant is based on the sole evidence of dying declaration. 4. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that after the deceased was admitted in the hospital, she was administered such drugs by which she must have become drowsy and the dying declaration recorded after the administration of those drugs cannot be safely relied on as the deceased would not have been in a position to fully understand and not in a position to state the facts leading to her injuries. 5. PW 11 Dr. R.C. Goyal has proved the post-mortem report of the deceased, the injury report of the accused-appellant and the dying declaration recorded in the hospital Ex. P/16. According to the doctor, the deceased was 50% burnt and she had died on account of extensive burn injuries. He has also stated that Ex. P/16 was recorded as stated by the deceased Smt. Poonji. The doctor was not cross-examined in respect of the deceased's condition at the time of recording of her statement nor there is any suggestion made that the deceased was not in a fit mental state of understanding because of administration of the drugs in the hospital on her admission. Not a word in the cross-examination that the medicine administered as per the bed head ticket Ex. P/13 was such which would have effected the mental capacity of the deceased. Apart from this, in our opinion, the FIR lodged in the Police Station will also be a dying declaration of the deceased. Under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, are relevant facts, when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question and such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death. The rule of English law for admission as dying declaration only such statements of relevant facts concerning cause and circumstances of homicide, as are made by the victim under the fixed and solemn belief that death is inevitable, is not the rule in India. Under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, even if the person did not apprehend that he would die, the statement made as to the cause of his death which results in his death and as to any of circumstance of the transaction, would be admissible. Thus, by virtue of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the FIR lodged by the victim will be admissible as a dying declaration, which is first in point of time recorded at 10 p.m. on 27.12.1991 by the deceased herself. The words of a dying person are entitled to be granted respect when the attending circumstances, invest such words with the stamp of truth. The FIR Ex. P/17 is proved by PW 12 Mangi Lal, who has recorded the FIR. No question was put to this witness in cross-examination as to arrive at a conclusion either that the FIR was not lodged by the deceased or that she was not in a mental condition to lodge the FIR or that she had falsely implicated the accused. At the time of lodging of the FIR, no medicine was administered to the victim so as to apply the argument of the counsel challenging dying declaration recorded at 10 p.m. on 27.12.1991. On careful perusal of both the dying declarations, we have no manner of doubt that it was the accused-appellant who has caused the burn injuries to the deceased on account of which Smt. Poonji died. We are satisfied that the facts and circumstances under which the first and second dying declarations were recorded were on account of free and voluntary statements of the deceased and is not tampered by any outside influence. 6. The prosecution has not produced any evidence to indicate that the relationship of the husband and wife were strained or that the accused-appellant was ill-treating her. 6. The prosecution has not produced any evidence to indicate that the relationship of the husband and wife were strained or that the accused-appellant was ill-treating her. It appears from the dying declaration that on the fateful day i.e. 27.12.1991, the husband left the house in the morning at about 8 and did not return till 8 p.m. and, therefore, the wife being anxious for his return, fetched him in the midst of drinks party and when they reached home, she had taunted him for breaking of the radio. Enraged, the husband who had already consumed liquor, reacted and sprinkled kerosene on the wife and lit the fire. When he saw his wife in the midst of the fire, he realised his mistake and tried to extinguish the fire, as a result thereof, he sustained injuries on his hands. The whole state of affairs does not indicate that there was any intention on the part of the accused-appellant to kill his wife or to cause such injuries with the intention which would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. At best, the accused could be saddled with the knowledge that his act might result in death. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the acts were done by the accused with a deliberate purpose of causing the death of his wife deceased Poonji. As the death was caused not with the intention to cause death but with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, the accused-appellant is liable to be convicted Under section 304 Pt. II Indian Penal Code. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the accused-appellant Under section 302 Indian Penal Code for life is set aside and is substituted by conviction Under section 304 Pt. II Indian Penal Code with five years rigorous imprisonment.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******