JUDGMENT (ORAL) Vishnu Sabai, J. - Through this appeal, the State of Maharashtra (Appellant) challenges the judgment and order dated 30-11-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 129 of 1984, acquitting the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that the deceased Shashikala, daughter of Dagadu Anyaba Kamble PW 1, was married to the respondent about 9 to 10 months prior to the incident. After marriage, she stayed for a couple of months at the house of the respondent situated in Indira Nagar Zopadpatti Pune-Alandi Road, Pune. During Diwali, she came to the house of her father. Mter Diwali, her father sent through her some clothes to the respondent. The respondent came to him and threw those clothes. Shashikala expected that the respondent would beat her. Consequently, Dagadu Kamble brought her to his place at Khed. After she was with him for a week there, the respondent along with his father Dhondiba came and both of them apologised to Dagadu promising that they would not ill-treat Shashikala. Consequently, Dagadu sent her with them. Thereafter, Dagadu Kamble came to Indira Nagar Zopadpatti where the respondent was residing and started staying there in a hut situated about 100 feet from the respondent's hut. On 28-3-1984 at about 8 p.m. Shashikala came to her father's hut and told him that when she asked the respondent not to gamble, he inflicted fist blows on her stomach and threw away the cooked food. Consequently, Dagadu Kamble along with Shashikala came to the house of the respondent and protested. On that the latter replied that he would continue gambling and his only obligation was to provide Shashikala with food and clothing. Dagadu Kamble returned to his hut thereafter. As soon as he had reached his hut, an old woman by the name of Parvatibai came and informed him that the respondent had burnt Shashikala and their hut was burning. On that Dagadu rushed, to Shashikala's house along with his sister Hirabai Mhaske PW 2 where he saw the respondent standing just near the hut, the entrance door of which was chained with a chain from outside. When he peeped into the hut, he saw Shashikala lying on the ground in a burnt condition. On that Dagadu rushed, to Shashikala's house along with his sister Hirabai Mhaske PW 2 where he saw the respondent standing just near the hut, the entrance door of which was chained with a chain from outside. When he peeped into the hut, he saw Shashikala lying on the ground in a burnt condition. He called her by name and she informed him that the respondent had inflicted fist blows on her stomach and thereafter poured kerosene oil on her person, and set fire to her sari with a kerosene lamp. Consequently, he lifted Shashikala and along with his sister Hirabai PW 2 and one Vitthal Ballal, the immediate neighbour of Shashikala, took her in a rickshaw to Sasoon Hospital where she was admitted in Ward No. 27 (Burns Ward). It is said that while on way, to Sasoon Hospital Shashikala was shouting that kerosene had been poured on her and she had been set to fire. 3. Evidence of Dr. Sahebrao Savale PW 5 shows that at .8.45 p.m. on 28-3-1984, Shashikala was admitted at Sasoon Hospital, Pune. On examining her, he found that she had sustained 100 % burns. At the time of examination, he found that she was fully conscious and well oriented. He asked her the history of the burns, and incorporated her reply in his hand-writing in the medical case papers Exhibit 19. The relevant part of Exhibit 19 reads thus: 28-3-1984 Informant patient herself alleged H/o Homicidal burns today 9.45 p.m. at about 8.00 p.m. at home. Pt. had quarrel with her husband today evening (Her husband is a gambler). Pt. told him not to gamble. He had angry with her. He had quarrel with her. He told her that she should keep quiet or he will set her on fire. She did not listen. So he poured kerosene on her arid set her on fire with a lamp and the patient got extensive deep burns. Patient's father-in-law was also present at home at the time of incident. He was also taking part in quarrel. When patient was set on fire, none of them tried to extinguish the fire. Patient yelled out for help and few neighbours and patient's relatives came to her home and poured water on her. But it was too late. Patient got extensive deep burns. Immediately, patient was brought to S.G.H. by patient's father and other relatives. When patient was set on fire, none of them tried to extinguish the fire. Patient yelled out for help and few neighbours and patient's relatives came to her home and poured water on her. But it was too late. Patient got extensive deep burns. Immediately, patient was brought to S.G.H. by patient's father and other relatives. Family H - Married 9 months back living with husband. Husband does not do any particular job. He is a regular gambler. Patient didn't like him gambling. Since marriage they had quarrel off and on. Ultimately, it led to homicide. 4 days back the couple was living with other relatives i.e. mother in-law, father-in-law and their children and with her husband. 4 days back they had quarrel and they got separated and started living separately in single room Zopadi near the parents. Here also the couple had repeated quarrels. Obsta H. Married 9 months back. Since marriage husband and wife had repeated quarrels." 4. Evidence of Dr. Sahebrao Savale PW 5 shows that after examining Shashikala, he immediately informed the police on duty at Sasoon Hospital, Pune. The information was passed on to PSI Somnath Salunkhe PW 9 (formerly Somnath Langote) who at that time was attached to Vishrantwadi Police Station that one Shashikala Mesu Vidhate who had sustained 100% burns had been admitted in Ward No. 27 in Sasoon Hospital, Pune. PSI Salunkhe immediately informed the PSO Mohammed Mulani PW 10 about the necessity of recording a dying declaration and asked him to contact Special Executive Magistrate of Vishrantwadi area in that connection, and proceeded to the hospital. In the meantime, Special Executive Magistrate Laxman Dhondiba Shelar PW 7 was contacted. Sometimes before 1 a.m. both of them reached the bums ward of Sasoon Hospital, Pune. PSI Salunkhe asked Dr. Savale PW 5 whether Shashikala was in a condition to give a dying declaration and the doctor replied in the affirmative. He also stated that he should record the same as soon as possible. The Special Executive Magistrate Laxman Shelar informed PSI Salunkhe that his hand was injured and requested him to record the answers given by Shashikala to the questions put by him. At 1 a.m. the dying declaration was recorded. It is Exhibit 20. It is a crucial piece of evidence. We are reproducing it in entirety: "Statement dated 29-3-1984 Question: What is your name, lady and where you reside? At 1 a.m. the dying declaration was recorded. It is Exhibit 20. It is a crucial piece of evidence. We are reproducing it in entirety: "Statement dated 29-3-1984 Question: What is your name, lady and where you reside? Answer: My name is Sou. Shashikala Mesu Vidhate. I reside in the hutment colony of Indira Nagar. Question: My name is Laxman Dhondiba Shelar Rio Vishrantwadi. I am a Honorary Magistrate. I came to obtain your statement. Do you understand it? Answer: Yes. Question: From what things you receive this burn? Answer: Today at about 8.00 p.m. I was in the house. My husband named Mesu and my father in-law Dhondiba were also in the house. At that time, I told my husband not to indulge in gambling and he replied that I will continue to indulge in gambling. Then I again told him not to indulge in gambling. Thereafter he said that I will kill you. I will cause your death by setting you on fire. Then he poured the kerosene on my person from the kerosene bottle which was in the house and with the help of tin lamp which was burning in the house he gave its touch to my sari and I caught fire totally. I screamed people from the surrounding areas gathered and extinguished the fire on my person. Then people who gathered there brought me in the hospital. I was screaming when I caught fire. My father resides in the same locality. My marriage was solemonized 9 months back and my husband is dealing in the sale of baloons. I do not read and write. My statement is read over to me and it is correct according to my version. The statement is reduced in writing. L.H.T.I. of Sou. Shashikala Mesu Vidhate. Before me S/d in English PSI Vishrantwadi Police Station 29-3-1984 1.00 a.m. The above statement is recorded on interrogation in person on reaching at Sasoon General Hospital S/d 20-3-1984. Above statement taken in my presence. The patient is in a condition to give statement. S/d In English Dr. Savale S.S. 29-3-1984 1.00 a.m. Burns Ward Sasoon General Hospital Pune. Exh. No.20 Add/. Sess. Judge. Pune." 5. After the dying declaration had been recorded. PSI Somnath Salunkhe PW 9 lodged an F.I.R for offence under Section 307. IPC against the respondent. 6. The patient is in a condition to give statement. S/d In English Dr. Savale S.S. 29-3-1984 1.00 a.m. Burns Ward Sasoon General Hospital Pune. Exh. No.20 Add/. Sess. Judge. Pune." 5. After the dying declaration had been recorded. PSI Somnath Salunkhe PW 9 lodged an F.I.R for offence under Section 307. IPC against the respondent. 6. The evidence is that Shashikala succumbed to her injuries on the next day (29-3-1984) at 10. p.m. Pursuant to that the case was converted from one under Section 307, IPC to that under Section 302. IPC. The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by PSI Salunkhe PW 9, P.I. Mohammed Mulani PW 10 and P.I. Yashwant Pathak PW 11. During the course of it witnesses were interrogated under Section 161, Cr. P.C. We are not adverting to the details because the same in our view are not necessary. After completing the investigation. P.I. Yashwant Pathak PW 11 submitted the charge-sheet against the respondent. 7. Going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Shashikala was conducted on 30-3-1984 between 11 a.m. to 12 noon by Dr. L.G. Pherwani PW 6. Dr. Pherwani found 85% burns on the corpse. They were second .and third degree burns and were distributed between face, neck, chest, abdomen, both upper extremities, back and both lower extremities. In the opinion of Dr. Pherwani, the said burns were ante-mortem and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 8. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where a charge under, Section 302. IPC was framed against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, in all the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. We may straightaway mention that the sheet anchor of the prosecution evidence are the three dying declarations made by the deceased Shashikala, prior to her death: (i) oral dying declaration made to her father Dagadu Kamble PW 1 on the place of the incident. (ii) declaration recorded by Dr. Savale in his own handwriting in the medical case papers Exhibit 19; and (iii) the dying declaration recorded by PSI Somnath Salunkhe pursuant to the questions put by Sem Shelar to the deceased Shashikala. The defence of the respondent was of alibi. He examined one Bharat Savant D.W. 1 to substantiate it. (ii) declaration recorded by Dr. Savale in his own handwriting in the medical case papers Exhibit 19; and (iii) the dying declaration recorded by PSI Somnath Salunkhe pursuant to the questions put by Sem Shelar to the deceased Shashikala. The defence of the respondent was of alibi. He examined one Bharat Savant D.W. 1 to substantiate it. Bharat Savant stated that at the time of the incident the respondent was at the place where the construction of his (Bharat's) cycle shop was going on. The said place was 300 to 400 feat from the house of the respondent. He was there for collecting his wages in connection with the work which he had done the earlier day. At about 7.30 to 7.45 p.m. a woman by the name of Smt. Dhore came running and informed that there was a fire in the colony. On that information, he along with the respondent went to the latter's hut and found Shashikala in a burnt condition. The trial Judge did not accept the evidence in the form of three dying declarations and consequently acquitted the respondent vide the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. 9. We have heard Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. Deepak R. More with Mr. G.N. Kale for the respondent. Whereas the former contended that the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for rejecting the evidence of the three dying declarations are manifestly perverse, the latter urged that they are wholly tenable and plausible. Having heard them and perused the three dying declarations; the depositions of the prosecution witnesses the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statement of the respondent recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the evidence of Bharat Savant DW. 1; and the impugned judgment, we are implicitly satisfied that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent is manifestly perverse and warrants to be set aside. We make it clear that we have reached the said conclusion bearing in mind that we are seized of the matter in an appeal against acquittal wherein the settled law is that the Appellate Court only interferes if the appreciation of the evidence is grossly unreasonable or per verse or the impugned order of acquittal is vitiated by any illegality resulting in failure of justice. We have also borne in mind the caution given by the Supreme Court, in para 9, in the oft-referred case of Sanwat Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan1, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has the power: "to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion: but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified." We feel that wholly perverse reasons have been given by the learned trial Judge for rejecting the three dying declarations. 10. We now take up individually the three dying declarations. We begin with the oral dying declaration made by the deceased Shashikala to her father Dagadu Kamble on the place of the incident. The evidence of Dagadu Kamble PW1 is that when on receiving information from Parvatibai that the respondent had burnt his daughter, he went to the place of the respondent, he saw his daughter lying in a burnt condition inside the hut which was chained with a chain from outside and she told him that the respondent had first inflicted fist blows on her stomach and thereafter poured kerosene oil over her person and set fire to her sari with a kerosene lamp. The trial Judge has dealt with the oral dying declaration in para 20 of the impugned judgment, and has rejected the same for two reasons: (a) Dagadu Kamble is an interested witness; and (b) The possibility of Shashikala being tutored prior to it cannot be ruled out. We find the said reasons to be wholly untenable. It is too late in the day to reject the evidence of a witness on the circumstance of being interested. Way back as 1965 in the oft-referred case of Masalti and others v. State of U.P.2, the Supreme Court observed that the circumstance that a witness is interested would not mechanically result in the court rejecting his evidence but would only make the court scrutinise his evidence with caution and accept the same, if it passes the test of cautious scrutiny. Hence reason (a) assigned by the learned trial Judge is untenable. We may mention that we have scrutinised Dagadu Kamble's evidence with caution j and bind it to be trustworthy. Reason (b) is also untenable because the evidence of Dagadu Kamble and also of other witnesses shows that the hut wherein Shashikala was lying in an injured condition had been catched with a chain from outside and the respondent was standing there. In such a situation, it was not possible for anyone to have tutored her. We wish to emphasise that courts do not reject a piece of evidence on a mere possibility. They reject it only when there is a probability and that probability is established from the circumstances appearing from the evidence. We have meticulously gone through the entire evidence on record and find there is no evidence to indicate the probability of Shashikala having been tutored prior to her making the oral dying declaration to her father Dagadu Kamble. For the said reasons, we strongly feel that the evidence of oral dying declaration made to Dagadu KambJe PW1 has been wrongly rejected by the trial Judge. It should be borne in mind that the evidence of Dagadu Kamble PW 1 shows that his hut was situated at a distance of about 100 feet from that of the respondent and therefore, the prosecution case that on receiving the information from Parvatibai, he could reach the hut of the respondent immediately where Shashikala made an oral dying declaration to him is also probable. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the judgment that the evidence of oral dying declaration proved by Dagadu Kamble PW 1 inspires implicit confidence; has been, perversely rejected by the trial Judge; and is individually sufficient to record the conviction of the respondent for an offence under Section 302, IPC. 12. We now take up the dying declaration contained in the medical case papers Exhibit 19, prepared by Dr. Sahebrao Savale PW 5. The evidence of Dr. Savale is that Shashikala was admitted at Sasoon Hospital, Pune, at 8.45 p.m. on 28-3-1984. She was conscious and well oriented, when he asked her the history of her burns nobody was present near her. She gave the history of her burns which he recorded in his own hand-writing. We have extracted the said history in para 4 above. Savale is that Shashikala was admitted at Sasoon Hospital, Pune, at 8.45 p.m. on 28-3-1984. She was conscious and well oriented, when he asked her the history of her burns nobody was present near her. She gave the history of her burns which he recorded in his own hand-writing. We have extracted the said history in para 4 above. In short, she stated that her husband was a gambler and at about 8 p.m. when she tried to prevent him from gambling, he quarreled with her; threatened her to keep quiet; otherwise he would set her on fire; she did not listen to him; and thereupon he poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire by a lamp resulting in her receiving extensive burns. She also stated that at that time, her father-in-law was also present and both he and her husband did not try to extinguish the fire. In our view, the said dying declaration also inspires confidence. It is true that during cross-examination, Dr. Savale PW 5 was suggested that on account of pain-killing injections, Shashikala would have become unconscious but he denied the said suggestion. It should also be borne in mind that Dr. Savale PW 5 was a wholly independent witness and had no axe to grind against the respondent. 13. Two grounds have been assigned by the learned trial Judge for rejecting this declaration; namely: (a) that since the relations of Shashikala and the police were present, the probability of her being tutored was there; and (b) considering her medical condition, it would be difficult to accept Dr. Savale's claim that she was conscious. We regret that there is no merit in either of these reasons. There is no evidence to warrant such a conclusion that Shashikala had been tutored by her relations and the police. It should also be borne in mind that during cross-examination no suggestion was made to Dr. Savale PW 5 that the dying declaration recorded in the medical case papers was on account of prompting by relations and the police. On the converse, as seen earlier, Dr. Savale categorically stated that when Shashikala made a dying declaration, she was all alone. A reading of Dr. Savale's evidence shows that Shashikala was admitted at Sasoon Hospital at 8.45 p.m. on 28-3-1984 and at 9.45 p.m. the dying declaration in the medical case papers was recorded by him. On the converse, as seen earlier, Dr. Savale categorically stated that when Shashikala made a dying declaration, she was all alone. A reading of Dr. Savale's evidence shows that Shashikala was admitted at Sasoon Hospital at 8.45 p.m. on 28-3-1984 and at 9.45 p.m. the dying declaration in the medical case papers was recorded by him. His statement also gives the impression that he was throughout with Shashikala between 8.45. p.m. and 9.45 p.m. In such a situation, had Shashikala be,en tutored, the same would have been in his knowledge. Again, we feel that the learned trial Judge was wrong in concluding that the medical condition of Shashikala was such that Shashikala could not have given the case history to Dr. Savale. To repeat, there was no animous on the part of Dr. Savale against the respondent and unless Shashikala was conscious and well-oriented, Dr. Savale would not have stated about the same. It is significant to point out that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of Dr. Savale which would show that his opinion regarding Shashikala being well-oriented and conscious was wrong or untenable. In our view, in such a situation, the learned trial Judge should have accepted the evidence of Dr. Savale and not reached a conclusion, for the reasons mentioned by him in para 19 of the impugned judgment, that Shashikala was not in a fit condition to give the statement contained in the medical case papers. 14. In our view, for the said reasons, the dying declaration contained in the medical case papers Exhibit 19 inspires implicit confidence; has been perversely rejected by the trial Judge; and by itself is sufficient for recording the conviction of the respondent for an offence under Section 302, IPC. 15. We now take up the dying declaration proved by the Special executive Magistrate Laxman Shelar. PW 7. His evidence shows that at about midnight he received a call for recording the dying declaration at Sasoon Hospital. Consequently he reached Ward No. 27 where Shashikala was admitted. He found Dr. Savale PW 5 and P.I. Salunkhe PW 9 to be present there. Since there was an injury on his hand, he asked P.I. Salunkhe PW 9 to record the answers given by Shashikala in respect of the questions put to her. Consequently he reached Ward No. 27 where Shashikala was admitted. He found Dr. Savale PW 5 and P.I. Salunkhe PW 9 to be present there. Since there was an injury on his hand, he asked P.I. Salunkhe PW 9 to record the answers given by Shashikala in respect of the questions put to her. In the earlier part of our judgment we have reproduced dying declaration which is on the same lines as oral dying declaration and the dying declaration recorded in the medical case papers Exhibit 19. In short, Shashikala has stated therein that her husband was a gambler; at about 8 p.m. on the date of the incident, she asked him not to gamble; he replied that he would and would kill her; and thereafter poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. We find that in the said dying declaration, Exhibit 20, there is an endorsement by Dr. Savale PW 5 to the effect that it was recorded in his presence and she was in a condition to give a statement. We also find that there is an endorsement by the Special Executive Magistrate Laxman Shelar PW 7 that the said statement was recorded on his interrogation. Although Dr. Savale and the S.E.M. Shelarwere subjected to a searching cross-examination but, nothing could be extracted therefrom which would establish that the declarant was not in a mentally fit condition when she gave the dying declaration. It is also pertinent to mention that nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of the said witnesses which would ensure that the dying declaration was a result of prompting by police or relations. In this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to the evidence of P.I. Salunkhe PW 9 who had recorded the dying declaration in the words given out by Shashikala in response to the questions put by the S.E.M. Shelar PW 7. It was suggested to him that after making enquiry with the relations of Shashikala, he prepared her statement but, he emphatically denied the said suggestion, as also the suggestion that Shashikala had not stated anything in his presence. In our view, the dying declaration of Shashikala proved by the S.E.M. Shelar PW 7 which is in the form of Question and Answer, inspires implicit confidence. In our view, the dying declaration of Shashikala proved by the S.E.M. Shelar PW 7 which is in the form of Question and Answer, inspires implicit confidence. The Supreme Court in para 16 of the oft-referred case reported in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay3 has observed thus "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, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character." In paras 13 to 18 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge has given reasons for rejecting this dying declaration of Sashikala recorded by P.I. Salunkhe after S.E.M had put questions to her Laxman Shelar, PW 7. They are: (a) that the statement of S.E.M. Laxman Shelar PW 7 to the effect that since there was an injury on his hand, he did not record the dying declaration in his own hand and asked PSI Salunkhe to record it, is untenable; (b) the date and time mentioned below the signature of P.I. Salunkhe is in different ink from the one used for his endorsement in signature, and this gives an impression that the S.E.M. Laxman Shelar pm himself wrote the same; (c) when P.I. Mulani PW 10 realised that PSI Salunkhe should not have recorded the dying declaration, he could have got another S.E.M. to record another dying declaration; (d) before recording the dying declaration, S.E.M. Laxman Shelar PW 7 should have himself verified whether the declarant was in a fit mental condition to make the same. We have reflected over the said reasons and we find that they do not hold any water. So far as reason (a) is concerned, the learned trial Judge over-looked the fact that the dying declaration given out by Shashikala is a long one and the endorsement given by the S.E.M. Shelar which was in terms that the statement was recorded on interrogation of the declarant on reaching the Sasoon Hospital was in few words. So far as reason (a) is concerned, the learned trial Judge over-looked the fact that the dying declaration given out by Shashikala is a long one and the endorsement given by the S.E.M. Shelar which was in terms that the statement was recorded on interrogation of the declarant on reaching the Sasoon Hospital was in few words. In other words, the said endorsement could have been made by S.E.M Shelar inspite of an injury on his hand but it was not possible for him to write the entire statement in his hand. Another way of looking at the whole thing is that the S.E.M. Shelar PW 7 had no option but to make the said endorsement because the dying declaration would not have been complete without it. That being the position, he might have even suffered excruciating pain to make the said endorsement. Reason (b) is untenable because after having examined the original dying declaration Exhibit 20, we do not find that the date and time mentioned below the signature of PSI Salunkhe is in a different ink from the one used in writing the statement. In our view, it is in the same ink. Reason (c) was also irrelevant for rejecting this dying declaration. That P.I. Mulani did not get another dying declaration recorded by another S.E.M. in our view, would be hardly any reason to reject this dying declaration. It is another matter that it might have been better had he called another S.E.M. to record another dying declaration. It may be that P.I. Mulani refrained from doing so because, the condition of Shashikala was precarious and the doctor may not have permitted recording of another dying declaration for the same would have involved tremendous strain on her which might have endangered her life. At any rate, not recording of another dying declaration by another S.E.M. would not in any way lessen the value to be attached to this dying declaration. We have seen the specific evidence of S.E.M. Shelar PW 7 that there was an injury on his hand and therefore, he had asked PSI Salunkhe PW 9 to record the same. Reason (d) is also frivolous. In the dying declaration Exhibit 20, there is an endorsement of Dr. Savale PW 5 to the effect that the said statement was taken in his presence and the declarant was in a fit condition to make the same. Reason (d) is also frivolous. In the dying declaration Exhibit 20, there is an endorsement of Dr. Savale PW 5 to the effect that the said statement was taken in his presence and the declarant was in a fit condition to make the same. In view of the said statement, the circumstance that the S.E.M. Laxman Shelar PW 7 himself did "not ascertain whether Shashikala was physically fit and welloriented to give her dying declaration would be of no consequence. 16. In our view, the dying declaration made by Sashikala in reply to questions put by S.E.M Laxman Shelar inspires implicit confidence, has been perversely rejected by the trial court and independently is capable of recording the condition of the respondent for an offence under Section 302, IPC. 17. We now take up the defence of alibi pleaded by the respondent and the evidence of Bharat Savant DW 1 examined by him to substantiate it. In short, the evidence of Bharat Savant is that at a distance of 300 to 400 feet from the place where his cycle shop was being constructed was the house of the respondent. A day prior to when the incident took place, the respondent had worked in connection with the construction work going on at the said shop and on the date and time of the incident was present there to collect the wages from him. At that time, a woman Smt Dhore came and informed that there was a fire in the colony on that information he and the respondent rushed and found that wife of the respondent was burning. Apart from the fact that this statement of Bharat Savant saw the light of the day for the first time in the trial court, we find that in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. the respondent has made no mention of the fact that on the date and time of the incident he was with Bharat Savant and came with him and found his wife burning. P.C. the respondent has made no mention of the fact that on the date and time of the incident he was with Bharat Savant and came with him and found his wife burning. On the converse, while answering question No. 29 which was whether he wanted to say anything more in his defence he stated that while he was returning from the place where he had gone to bring the amount which was due from the person at whose place he had previously worked, he saw that a crowd had gathered in the colony and a woman who was crying that her hut was set on fire was running. That woman, per his statement, was his wife. In our view, the variance between the evidence of Bharat Savant DW 1 and the answer given by the respondent to Question No. 29 shows that the defence of alibi pleaded by the respondent was false. This defence is also belied by the evidence of Dagadu Kamble PW 1 and his sister Hirabai Mhaske PW 2 who categorically stated that immediately after Shashikala had set herself to fire, they reached the hut of the respondent and found that the same was chained from outside and the respondent was standing. The chaining of hut from outside and the respondent standing there shows that he had set the deceased on fire, then chained the hut from outside and was start ding there to thwart the attempt of any person to rescue Shashikala. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, we find ourselves unable to find merit in Mr. Deepak More's submission, eloquently though it was canvassed, that plausible reasons have been assigned by the learned trial Judge for rejecting the evidence of the three dying declarations and we find merit in Mr. Borulkar's submission that the said reasons are perverse. 19. The only question which remains to be answered is the offence made out against the respondent. In our view, it would be no other than that under Section 302. IPC. According to the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Laxman Pherwani PW 6 the deceased had sustained 85% bums of the second and third degree on her head, face, neck, chest, abdomen, both upper extremeties, back and both lower extremities. He further stated that the bums of 60% or more were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. IPC. According to the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Laxman Pherwani PW 6 the deceased had sustained 85% bums of the second and third degree on her head, face, neck, chest, abdomen, both upper extremeties, back and both lower extremities. He further stated that the bums of 60% or more were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We find his statement to be plausible and in tune with common sense. In our view, the act of the respondent would squarely fall in the ambit of clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC, which provides that culpable homicide is held to be murder if the act: 'is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or : A perusal of the said clause would show that in order to attract it two requirements have to be satisfied: (a) there should be an intention to cause the injury inflicted. In other words the injury inflicted should not be accidental; and (b) the injury inflicted should be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In our view, both the elements are satisfied. The three dying declarations of the deceased Shashikala make it crystal clear that the respondent intentionally burnt her after pouring kerosene oil on her and the evidence of Dr. Pherwani proves beyond all pale of doubt that the burns sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause her death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. Pherwani found 85% bums on the corpse of the deceased and stated that if 60% or more bums are caused they would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 20. This leaves us with only one question namely the sentence to be awarded to the respondent. We have reflected over the said question. It is true that in a most cruel manner the respondent burnt the deceased after pouring kerosene oil on her but a perusal of the dying declarations would show that the deceased was set to fire by the respondent when she kept on insisting that he should leave gambling and at that the respondent felt in censed poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. Bearing this in mind as also the fact that nearly 14-1/2 years have elapsed since the incident took place and there is nothing to indicate that the respondent has any adverse antecedents in our view, the ends of justice would be satisfied if he is sentenced to undergo a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 IPC. 21. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The acquittal of the respondent Mesu Dhondiba Vidhate recorded vide the impugned judgment for the offence under Section 302. IPC is set aside. He is found guilty of having committed an offence, under Section 302. IPC and is directed to suffer a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life thereunder. The said respondent is on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered to us by the learned counsel for the parties in the disposal of this appeal. Despite the fact that the impugned judgment was impossible to defend, Mr. Deepak More, learned counsel for the respondent, left no stone unturned to convince us that it did not warrant to be reversed. In case an application is made by the counsel for the parties, for a certified copy of this judgment, the same shall be issued within four weeks from today. Appeal allowed. 1. A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 715. 2. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 202. 3. A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 22.