JUDGMENT N.K. Jain, J. -- 1. Aggrieved by his conviction U/Ss. 302 and 449 of the IPC and sentences of imprisonment for life and 10 years rigorous imprisonment awarded therefor respectively by the Sessions Judge, Shajapur vide judgment dated 10.5.91 passed in S.T. No. 175/90, the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal U/s 374 Cr.P.C. 2. Devisingh (PW-4) is the husband of the deceased, Shantabai who died of burn injuries on 17.5.90. Rekha (PW-5) is their 9 years old daughter. Chandersingh (PW-1) is the nephew (sister's son) of Devisingh. 3. The case of the prosecution against the appellant-accused in the trial Court was that at the relevant time the accused lived in 'Nai Abadi' Maksi in front of the house of Devisingh. Satishsingh (PW-9) occupied a portion of the accused's house on rent. Accused, it is said, used to insist Shantabai to come and live with him as his wife. The deceased, however, refused to oblige the accused. On 17.5.1990 around 1.00 PM Shantabai was alone in the house when the accused came there with a bottle of kerosene, poured kerosene on the body of the deceased, lit fire with the help of a match box and ran away. The deceased caught fire and started crying hearing which Satishsingh rushed to the spot and extinguished the fire by putting clothes over the body of the deceased. In the process Satishsingh also burnt his hands. Shantabai told Satishsingh that the accused has burnt her and fled away. 4. Devisingh who was out of Maksi at the relevant time on his return was told about the incident by Satishsingh. He informed Chandersingh about the incident and returned home where Shantabai narrated the entire incident to him. Chandersingh lodged a report (vide Ex.P/2) at P.S. Maksi the same day at 2.00 PM. Sub-Inspector Mahendra Singh Pawar (PW-10) immediately rushed to the spot and recorded statement (vide Ex.P/8) of Shantabai. An empty bottle and half burnt petticoat, both smelling of kerosene, were also recovered from the spot (vide seizure memo Ex.P/2). 5. Shantabai was shifted to District Hospital, Shajapur where she was examined and treated for her injuries by Dr. D.S. Mehta (PW-3) the same day at 3.00 PM. An empty bottle and half burnt petticoat, both smelling of kerosene, were also recovered from the spot (vide seizure memo Ex.P/2). 5. Shantabai was shifted to District Hospital, Shajapur where she was examined and treated for her injuries by Dr. D.S. Mehta (PW-3) the same day at 3.00 PM. She had 84% burnt injuries all over her body as per report Ex.P/1-A. Her dying declaration (vide Ex.P/5) was recorded by an Executive Magistrate Siddheshwar Vyas (PW-6) wherein the deceased again blamed accused Ramesh for having burnt her. She was then shifted to M.Y. Hospital, Indore for further treatment where at about 9.00 PM she succumbed to her injuries. 6. The police registered a crime U/Ss. 302 and 449 IPC, conducted inquest U/s 174 Cr.P.C. got the autopsy of the body of the deceased performed, arrested the accused and after other due investigation charge-sheeted him for trial. 7. At the trial, the accused abjured his guilt and pleaded to have been implicated falsely. He denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The learned Sessions Judge after trial held him guilty convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 8. The appellant has assailed his conviction as contrary to law and facts. The submissions on behalf of the appellant accused have been made by Shri Jaisingh Advocate, who has also taken us through the entire evidence on record. It was submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution were inimical to the appellant and that the dying declarations in question could not be believed in absence of independent corroboration. As against it, the learned Public Prosecutor, has seriously supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there is strong and cogent evidence in the form of dying declarations both oral and written to prove beyond doubt the charges against the appellant accused. 9. It has not been disputed before us that on the relevant day Shantabai died of bum injuries. This is borne out fully by the medical evidence of Dr. D.S. Mehta (PW-3) and Dr. Vijay Agrawal (PW-9). Dr. Mehta had examined the deceased before her death on 17.5.1990 and found that she had 84% bum injuries all over her body as stated in the report Ex.P/1-A. Dr. Agrawal had performed autopsy of the body of the deceased on 18.5.1990 which confirmed presence of bum injuries all over her body which ultimately led to her death (vide report Ex.P/6). Mehta had examined the deceased before her death on 17.5.1990 and found that she had 84% bum injuries all over her body as stated in the report Ex.P/1-A. Dr. Agrawal had performed autopsy of the body of the deceased on 18.5.1990 which confirmed presence of bum injuries all over her body which ultimately led to her death (vide report Ex.P/6). The injuries, according to both the Doctors above could be caused by pouring kerosene and lighting fire to the body of the deceased. The information revealed by the medical evidence above could not be challenged by the defence in cross-examination. However, the most question remains as to whether the accused did the deceased to death. 10. As regards the occurrence, although the prosecution examined Rekha (PW-5) the daughter of the deceased to depose of the same but the trial Court has rejected and rightly so the evidence of the child witness firstly because she appeared to have been tutored and secondly her very presence at the scene of occurrence was doubtful. The prosecution case thus depends wholly on the circumstantial evidence consisting of various dying declarations both oral and written said to have been made by the deceased immediately after the occurrence and prior to her death. 11. Satishsingh (PW-9) is a witness of res-gestae who at the relevant time occupied on rent a portion of house belonging to the accused just in front of the deceased's house where the occurrence took place. He was the first person to reach the scene of occurrence. He testified that at the relevant time he was at his house when hearing cries from the house of Shantabai he reached there and saw that Shantabai was in flames running here and there and crying. He extinguished the fire by putting some clothes on her body and in the process burned his own hands, the witness added. The deceased, he further stated, told him that Ramesh, his (witness's) landlord, has put her to fire. 12. Devisingh (PW-4) the deceased's husband and his nephew Chandersingh (PW-1) have told the Court that on receiving information about the incident, Devisingh first went to Chandersingh, informed him about the incident and then they both came to the spot where Shantabai was lying with bum injuries and told them that Ramesh s/o Sewaram has set her to fire after pouring kerosene on her body. 13. 13. The testimony of the PWs above could not be challenged successfully by the defence in their cross-examination Satishsingh is totally independent witness. He and as a matter of fact even Devisingh and Chandersingh also, had no grudge in implicating the accused falsely. A report of the incident (vide Ex.P/2) was lodged with the police by Chandersingh immediately after occurrence and in that report also it was clearly mentioned that Shantabai has disclosed to him (Chandersingh) that it was accused Ramesh who had set her to fire. The report thus lends full corroboration to the prosecution story as spoken by the PW s above. 14. The deceased, as would appear from the medical evidence of Dr. Mehta (PW-3), was in her full senses even when she was brought to Hospital after lodging of the report Ex.P/2. Under the circumstance it was only natural for her to relate her tale to her husband and the other 2 PW s one of whom was her neighbour and the other a relation. The Court below has discussed at length the evidence of these witnesses and we find ourselves in full agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that their evidence inspired confidence. 15. It will be thus seen that the deceased made an oral statement before Satishsingh which was first in point of time and is also consistent and straight forward and has been deposed to by Satishsingh who is an independent witness and bears so animus against the accused. The second statement was made to Devisingh (PW-4) and Chandersingh (PW-1) which fully corroborates the version given by the deceased to Satishsingh and is supported by report Ex.P/2 lodged by Chandersingh without any loss of time. 16. The third statement was made by the deceased to Sub-Inspector Mahendra Singh (PW-10) which was reduced in writing (vide Ex.P/8) and has been deposed to by him on oath. He testified to have rushed to the spot on receiving report Ex.P/2 and recorded the aforesaid statement made to him by Shantabai. This statement though recorded by a Police Officer during inquiry/investigation is admissible in evidence U/s 32 of the Evidence Act. The statement is fully in tune with the earlier two statements made by the deceased as referred to above. In this statement also the deceased had clearly named the accused as the person who set her to fire. 17. This statement though recorded by a Police Officer during inquiry/investigation is admissible in evidence U/s 32 of the Evidence Act. The statement is fully in tune with the earlier two statements made by the deceased as referred to above. In this statement also the deceased had clearly named the accused as the person who set her to fire. 17. The last statement (Ex.P/5) of the deceased was made to Siddeshwar Vyas (PW-6) the Executive Magistrate, and which has been reduced in writing in question answer form. Furthermore, this dying declaration contains certificate of Dr. Mehta (PW-3) that the deceased was conscious from the beginning to end and at the time when the statement was recorded by PW-6. All this has been testified on oath by PW-6 Siddeshwar Vyas and PW-3 Dr. Mehta whose testimony again could not be challenged successfully in cross-examination. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt verecity of these two very responsible officers who had no reasons to take sides. In this statement also the deceased has clearly blamed the accused Ramesh for her burning and further explained that the accused had done so because she refused to go and live with him as his wife. 18. The law on "Dying Declaration" is well-settled. Suffice to say that although a dying declaration should be carefully scrutinised but if after perusal of the same the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and is free from any effort to prompt the deceased to make the statement and is coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in founding conviction on such a dying declaration even if there is no corroboration. See cases of Manuraja and another v. State of M.P. [ (1976) 3 SCC 104 ] and Kusha and ors. v. State of Orissa [ AIR 1980 SC 559 ]. 19. In the case in hand we find that there are consistent statements made by the deceased two of which have been reduced in writing wherein she has clearly stated that the accused owing to her refusal to submit to his lust, had burnt her after pouring kerosene on her body. There is nothing on record to show that there was any effort to prompt her to make those statements which as already pointed out are coherent and consistent. 20. There is nothing on record to show that there was any effort to prompt her to make those statements which as already pointed out are coherent and consistent. 20. From the two written dying declarations above it would further appear that the accused wanted the deceased to leave her husband and come to live with the former as his wife. Satishsingh (PW-9) has testified that there was some quarrel between the deceased and the accused 3-4 days prior to the occurrence. There was thus motive also, for the accused for committing the crime in question. 21. Testimony of Satishsingh (PW-9), Devisingh (PW-4) and Sub-Inspector Mahendra Singh (PW-10) further revealed that on the spot an empty bottle and half burnt petticoat smelling of kerosene were found which were subsequently seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.P/3. This is an important circumstance which further lends corroboration to the statements made by the deceased to various persons as aforesaid. It was, however, contended by the learned counsel for the defence that Doctor who conducted post mortem examination did not find any smell or kerosene on the body of the deceased. It will, however, appear from the statement of Dr. Agrawal (PW-8) that earlier to the said post mortem examination, the deceased had been treated for her injuries by other Doctors and her clothes were also changed. Under the circumstance it was quite possible that the smell of kerosene must have extinguished by the time the autopsy was performed. 22. As a last leg it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the aforesaid dying declarations it is not established that the accused was the same Ramesh who set the deceased to fire. We are not all persuaded by the argument. The deceased had not only named her assasin but has given full description as to his father's name and residence to fix his identity. The identity of the accused was further established by the statement of Satishsingh (PW-9) who testified that at the relevant time he occupied a portion of the house of the accused on rent and that the deceased had clearly told him that it was his (Satishsingh's) landlord Ramesh who has burnt her. The identity of the accused was further established by the statement of Satishsingh (PW-9) who testified that at the relevant time he occupied a portion of the house of the accused on rent and that the deceased had clearly told him that it was his (Satishsingh's) landlord Ramesh who has burnt her. There can be thus no manner of doubt that it was the appellant-accused Ramesh and he alone who first trespassed into the house of the deceased, poured kerosene on her and set her to fire which ultimately led to her death. Both the charges U/s 449 and 302 IPC were, therefore, brought home fully to the accused. His conviction on the aforesaid two charges and the sentences awarded to him are fully justified and call for no interference. 23. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant-accused is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur to serve out the sentence subject to the provision of Section 428 Cr.P.C.