JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.3.1991 of the Sessions Judge Rajgarh (Biaora) passed in S.T. No. 152/89 whereby accused-appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 of IPC for having committed murder of his wife Dhapubai, aged 22 years, by setting her to fire on the evening of 3.8.1989 in village Sunderpura, P.S. Malwar and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. This is not in dispute that deceased Dhapubai was the wife of accused. Both were living together. Dhapubai was found with burn injuries inside the house. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that accused used to assault and torture his wife. About 4-5 days prior to the date of incident Dhapubai failed to bring meals for the accused in fields as such she was taken in jungle by the accused where she was assaulted and tortured. She was kept without food. Accused came back alongwith his wife. After keeping her in jungle for about 3-4 days. Harisingh (PW. 4) and Bharatsingh met her on the way. She made a complaint to them about the beatings and torture done by accused. Accused got annoyed. He brought his wife Dhapubai inside house. Accused tied Dhapubai by rope, poured kerosene oil. and set her to fire. Dhapubai raised alarm. Smoke also came out of the house. Kasturibai (PW3)came to know about the fire inside the house. She also raised alarm. Persons assembled there. They found Dhapubai with burn injuries. She disclosed that her husband had set her to fire. 4. Mangilal, Head Constable (PW 10)was on Gasht duty. He received some information about the incident in village Sundarpura. He reached the spot and found Dhapubai with burn injuries. Rai singh, Kasturibai and Shambhulal were present in the house. 5. Dhapubai lodged a report Ex. P/17. The same was recorded by Mangilal (PW10). The thumb impression of Dhapubai was taken on Dehati Nalishi. The same was sent to Police Station for registration of the offence. Mangilal sent Dhapubai for medico-legal examination with a letter of request Ex. P/18 alongwith Constable Prahlad. Constable informed about the serious condition disclosed by the doctor. As such he (Mangilal) went to Naib Tehsildar Mr. Rameshchand Panthi and requested for recording dying declaration. 6. Mr. Rameshchand Panthi (PW9) Naib-tehsildar-Executive Magistrate recorded dying declaration Ex. P/14 made by Dhapubai. Dhapubai alleged about burn injuries having been caused by her husband Gangadhar. P/18 alongwith Constable Prahlad. Constable informed about the serious condition disclosed by the doctor. As such he (Mangilal) went to Naib Tehsildar Mr. Rameshchand Panthi and requested for recording dying declaration. 6. Mr. Rameshchand Panthi (PW9) Naib-tehsildar-Executive Magistrate recorded dying declaration Ex. P/14 made by Dhapubai. Dhapubai alleged about burn injuries having been caused by her husband Gangadhar. 7. Mangilal (PW20) visited the spot next day, and prepared site map Ex. P/1. He seized pieces of rope, match-box, half burnt Petti-coat, Dhoti, some match-sticks and some kerosene oil in a bottle and prepared Panchnama Ex. P/19. 8. Dehati Nalishi sent by Mangilal (PW. 10) was received by Hemantsingh (PW8) at about 9.40 a.m. on 4.8.1989. As such offence Under Section 307 IPC with Crime No. 54/89 was registered vide Ex. P/12. Dhapubai died in the hospital. Sub-Inspector Mehtabsingh (PW7) received information, registered Marg No. 24/89, visited the hospital, prepared inquest report Ex. P/10 and made a request for post-mortem examination. 9. Dr. A.G. Kamle (PW6) conducted post-mortem on the body of Dhapubai on 4.8.1989 at about 3.45 PM and found as follows : Smell of kerosene was coming from the body. There were burn marks present on the face, neck, chest, abdomen, both arms, both thighs and both legs. Only the back portion of both legs and inner portion of the feet remained unburnt. The burn injuries were about 75%. Hair of head and pubic were also burnt. Injuries were ante mortem. In the opinion of doctor Kamle injured died of shock because of burn injuries. He prepared Report Ex. P/7. 10. The witnesses were examined. Accused was arrested. Thereafter challan was filed against accused. The same was committed to the Court of Sessions in due course. Accused denied the guilt and pleaded false implication and alibi. He examined three witnesses i.e. Ramsingh (DW1) Gajendrasingh (DW2) and Premsingh (DW3) in support of his contention. 11. Learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as above. Hence this appeal. 12. The contention of learned Counsel for appellant is that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The possibility of false implication of accused by deceased because of earlier disputes and torturings cannot be ruled out. 13. The doctor who had certified about the condition of Dhapubai has not been examined and, therefore, the dying declaration recorded by Naib-Tehsildar Mr. R.C. Panthi (PW. 9) cannot be acted upon. 14. The possibility of false implication of accused by deceased because of earlier disputes and torturings cannot be ruled out. 13. The doctor who had certified about the condition of Dhapubai has not been examined and, therefore, the dying declaration recorded by Naib-Tehsildar Mr. R.C. Panthi (PW. 9) cannot be acted upon. 14. As against it, learned Counsel for respondent-State while supporting the case of prosecution had submitted that admittedly accused and Dhapubai were living together. Dhapubai was found with burn injuries inside the house. She immediately disclosed to the witnesses and to Head Constable Mangilal (PW10) about the burn injuries having been caused to her by her husband. She will be the last person to implicate her husband falsely. 15. The second contention of learned Counsel for State is that NaibTehsildar-Executive Magistrate is a responsible officer. He has no axe to grind against accused and, therefore, there is no reason as to why he should record a false dying declaration. 16. We were taken to the evidence on record. PW10 Mangilal has proved Dehati Nalishi Ex. P/17 and stated that he found Dhapubai with burn injuries inside her house. She disclosed about the burn injuries having been caused by her husband. She disclosed about the kerosene oil having been poured on her body. This finds place in the Dehati Nalishi. 17. Since Dhapubai died and Dehati Nalishi contains the reasons for the injuries which resulted in the death of Dhapubai, therefore, the same would be admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. In our opinion, it has rightly been admitted by the learned Trial Judge. 18. The second dying declaration proved by the prosecution is document Ex. P/14 recorded by Mr. R.C. Panthi (PW9). Mr. Panthi is an Executive Magistrate. He has no axe to grind against the accused. He has very clearly stated that Dhapubai was conscious. He obtained certificate from the doctor and, thereafter he recorded her statement. Dhapubai in her statement i.e. dying declaration Ex. P/14 has very clearly stated that her husband had set her to fire. The dying declaration has been recorded in the question-answer form. Mr. R.C. Panthi has very clearly stated that Dhapubai was conscious at the time of recording of dying declaration. Mere non-examination of doctor who has certified the fitness and consciousness of Dhapubai will not make the dying declaration untrustworthy. 19. The dying declaration has been recorded in the question-answer form. Mr. R.C. Panthi has very clearly stated that Dhapubai was conscious at the time of recording of dying declaration. Mere non-examination of doctor who has certified the fitness and consciousness of Dhapubai will not make the dying declaration untrustworthy. 19. It has also been submitted by learned Counsel for defence that the signature and thumb impression of Dhapubai were not taken and, therefore, the dying declaration cannot be believed and acted upon. We do not agree with this contention of learned Counsel as Mr. R.C. Panthi has very clearly stated that because of injuries thumb impression could not be taken. 20. Learned Counsel for defence then tried to assail the reliability of the dying declaration Ex. P/14 on the ground that as Dehati Nalishi recorded by Mangilal (PW10) contains thumb impression there is no reason as to why thumb impression of Dhapubai was not taken by Tahsildar-Magistrate Mr. Rarnesh Chand Panthi. 21. Mangilal (PW10) reached the village immediately within few hours after the incident. The injuries present on the body of Dhapubai may not have started giving serious effect and, therefore, thumb impression could be taken easily. After admission of Dhapubai in the hospital the injuries must have started showing its serious effect and they may have caused difficulty and obstruction in taking thumb impression and, therefore, the dying declaration recorded by Mr. R.C. Panthi (PW9) cannot be rejected on that ground. 22. Thus, in our opinion, the two dying declarations one recorded by Mangilal (PW10) by way of Dehati Nalishi vide Ex. P/17 and the second dying declaration recorded by Mr. R.C. Panthi, Naib-Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate vide Ex.P/14 has amply been proved by the prosecution and there are no reasons to reject those dying declarations. 23. PW1 Shambhoo lal who reached the spot on hearing the alarm raised by Kasturibai, has turned hostile. But he has admitted that he went to the house of accused and found Dhapubai in burnt condition. He has also admitted that there was smell of kerosene oil in the clothes of Dhapubai. It is noteworthy that smell of kerosene oil has been detected by Dr. Kamle (PW6) while conducting autopsy. Dhapubai has also stated about kerosene oil having been poured by accused, her husband. He has also admitted that there was smell of kerosene oil in the clothes of Dhapubai. It is noteworthy that smell of kerosene oil has been detected by Dr. Kamle (PW6) while conducting autopsy. Dhapubai has also stated about kerosene oil having been poured by accused, her husband. Thus, her this part of statement is corroborated about the presence of kerosene oil as stated by Shambhoo lal and found by Dr. Kamle. 24. PW2 Motilal, PW3 Kasturibai and PW4 Harisingh have also turned hostile. They have simply stated about having seen Dhapubai with burn injuries inside the house. They are neighbours and relations of the accused. It appears they were won over. They stand contradicted from their police statement and, therefore, they have rightly been disbelieved. 25. Defence has examined DW1 Ram singh, DW2 Gajendra singh and DW3 Premsingh to prove alibi. Ramsingh (DW1) has stated that Gangadhar came to the village after 15-20 days of the incident. Ramsingh has stated that accused has asked him to accompany him for work outside the village. DW2 Gajendra singh has also tried to state that accused was not in the village on the date of incident. All these witnesses have stated this fact after about 1 1/2 years. This fact was never made known to the police. They appear to be got-up witnesses. As such they are not reliable. 26. In our opinion the learned Trial Judge has rightly disbelieved them. It is also noteworthy that before the plea of alibi raised by the accused is accepted it requires a clear and cogent proof that the person was present in a place wherefrom he could not reach the place of incident or to go back to such place. No evidence of this type has been adduced and, therefore, the fact of alibi has rightly been disbelieved. 27. From the discussion above the fact of causing burn injuries to his wife Dhapubai by accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. We find nothing to disturb the finding of learned Trial Judge. Since Dhapubai died of burn injuries, the only intention that can be gathered is that accused intended to kill her. He has been awarded minimum sentence prescribed for murder and, therefore, that also does not call for interference. 28. As a result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.