JUDGMENT Deepak Verma, J. 1. Appellant, who has been found guilty of commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Court of Sessions judge, Shajapur, in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1993, decided on 3.10.1994, has preferred this appeal. 2. As per prosecution story, appellant Damoo @ Damodar was married to Bharti about two years back. Both of them were living in Marwadseri Shajapur. On 26.10.1992, deceased Bharti alongwith her sister-in-law Smt. Nirmalabai had gone to touch the feet of elders to seek their blessings on account of functions of Deepawali. When appellant Damoo came to know about it, and on her return, deceased Bharti was questioned as to why did she go without seeking his permission. Appellant got infuriated on account of the fact mat deceased had not cared to seek his prior permission before doing so. Thus, he started beating her. Not being satisfied with this, he bolted her inside the room and after pouring kerosene on her she was alighted by the appellant. 3. Prosecution story further goes to show that Nirmalabai, sister-in-law of the deceased, on coming to know that Bharti has been put to fire, rushed to the house of Mangilal and Kamlabai and informed them about the incident. They came immediately and found deceased Bharti, Nirmala and appellant in the courtyard. After seeing the burninjuries of Bharti, they immediately rushed her to the Hospital. Before she was taken to the Hospital, they had inquired from Bharti, as to how she had received the burn injuries, to which, they were told that her husband Damoo had poured kerosene and, then, she was put to ablaze. She was admitted in Civil Hospital at Shajapur. But, as her condition was serious, having received about 58.05% of burn injuries, she was shifted to Ujjain Civil Hospital for her further treatment. She, however, expired on 11.12.1992. 4. On 26.10.1992 itself, at Police Station, Shajapur, an information was received from the Hospital about a case of bride burning. It was recorded in Roznamcha Sanha on 26.10.1992 and marked as Ex. P1. On receiving this information, Mr. Rajendrasingh, Head Constable went to the Hospital and recorded statement of Bharti (Ex. P2). The statements of other witnesses were also recorded by this Head Constable Rajendra singh and an offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code was registered. 5. It was recorded in Roznamcha Sanha on 26.10.1992 and marked as Ex. P1. On receiving this information, Mr. Rajendrasingh, Head Constable went to the Hospital and recorded statement of Bharti (Ex. P2). The statements of other witnesses were also recorded by this Head Constable Rajendra singh and an offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code was registered. 5. She (Bharti) was first examined in the Civil Hospital, Shajapur by Dr. Dev Suman Mehta. After her death on 11.12.1992, post-mortem was performed by Dr. L.D. Garg. Post-mortem report has been marked as Ex. P8. Between 26.10.1992 and 10.12.1992, she was being treated at Ujjain Civil Hospital by Dr. G.S. Dhawan. After her death investigation was completed and charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Penal Code was filed against the appellant. 6. Appellant had abjured his guilt. In defence he had produced two witnesses as DW1 Nirmalabai, sister-in-law and DW 2 Kailash Parmar. Shivharayan Rathore, Photographer was examined as a Court witness, who has proved photographs of the room, where deceased Bharti was burnt by appellant. They have been marked as Ex. P.C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4. Their negatives have also been proved by the said witness. 7. Prosecution has examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. On appreciation of evidential material, available on record, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code and has awarded sentence of imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. Jaisingh, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Mukati, Government Advocate for respondent/State at length, and perused the record. 9. Dr. Deosuman Mehta (PW10) had examined deceased Bharti for the first time in Civil Hospital, Shajapur. His report is Ex. P.ll. He has deposed that she had received overall 58.05% of burn injuries. Dr. G.S. Dhawan (PW 7) was giving treatment to deceased Bharti, between 26.10.1992 and 10.12.1992 in Civil Hospital, Ujjain. His report is Ex. P.9. Injured Bharti succumbed to the burn injuries on 11.12.1992 in Civil Hospital, Ujjain. After her death, autopsy was performed by Dr. L.D. Garg (PW 4) alongwith Dr. Y.K. Vyas. Ex. P.8 is the post-mortem report. This witness has opined that generally those patients, who received more than 50% of burn injuries, their chances of survival are less and in most of the cases they succumbed to burn injuries. After her death, autopsy was performed by Dr. L.D. Garg (PW 4) alongwith Dr. Y.K. Vyas. Ex. P.8 is the post-mortem report. This witness has opined that generally those patients, who received more than 50% of burn injuries, their chances of survival are less and in most of the cases they succumbed to burn injuries. This witness has further opined, that about 75% of the body of deceased was burnt. He has further opined, that her death was caused on account of burn injuries and septicemia. 10. Thus, from the examination of medical reports and scrutiny of the evidence of doctors, it is proved, that deceased Bharti had died on account of burn injuries sustained by her on 26.10.1992. 11. Now, we would like to examine other evidence available on record so as to come to conclusion whether that it was appellant who had caused the burn injuries to deceased Bharti? 12. Prosecution has examined Mangilal (PW 1), Satyanarayan (PW 2), Sunil Gupta (PW 6), Sampatbai (PW 7) and Kamlabai (PW 8) to prove that appellant had caused the burn injuries to deceased Bharti. Mangilal and his wife Kamlabai (PW 1 and PW 8) were first to reach the scene of occurrence, when they were informed by Nirmalabai (DW1) that deceased Bharti had been put to fire by the appellant. On reaching the spot, they made inquiries from Bharti, who told them that kerosene was poured on her by her husband and then she was ignited by him. Thus, first oral dying declaration was made by the deceased to them. This fact has fully been proved by Mangilal (PW 1) and Kamlabai (PW 8), as also defence witness Nirmalabai, sister-in-law of the appellant and deceased. 13. It is also a matter of record, that Nirmalabai (DW 2) stays in the same house alongwith her husband. Her presence in the house was natural. There is nothing to disbelieve her evidence as a defence witness. In fact, she has only fortified the evidence of Mangilal and Kamlabai. 14. At the relevant point of time Mr. Rajendrasingh Head Constable (PW 3) was posted in Kotwali Shajapur. On receiving information about a bride-burning case, he had gone to Hospital. He has proved the entry of Roznamcha Sanha (Ex. P.I). After reaching Hospital, he had also recorded statement of Bharti, who at that time was being treated in the Hospital. In Ex. Rajendrasingh Head Constable (PW 3) was posted in Kotwali Shajapur. On receiving information about a bride-burning case, he had gone to Hospital. He has proved the entry of Roznamcha Sanha (Ex. P.I). After reaching Hospital, he had also recorded statement of Bharti, who at that time was being treated in the Hospital. In Ex. P.2, it has been stated by deceased Bharti that she received burn injuries on account of kerosene being poured on her by her husband appellant Damoo and then she was put to ablaze. This statement bears the thumb impression of deceased. Thus, this constitutes a second dying-declaration of the deceased. In both dying declarations, oral as well as written, she had taken a consistent stand that kerosene was poured on her by her husband appellant Damoo, who had also ignited her, on account of which, she had received the burn injuries. There is no reason to discard or disbelieve the oral dying-declaration followed by Ex. P.2, recorded by Head Constable. It has duly been proved by Rajendrasingh H.C. (PW 3). 15. The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that if appellant had made any efforts to extinguish the fire, then, the articles kept in the room would have got scattered, but no articles kept in the room were misplaced, which can be verified from the photographs filed and proved as Ex. P.C-1A to Ex. P.C.-4A. 16. Apart from this, it is also pertinent to mention here, that if appellant had made any efforts to save his burning wife, then, he would have also received some burn injuries. But, record shows that he had not received any burn injury. 17. On account of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is, that it was appellant, who had poured kerosene on his wife Bharti and then had put her to fire. No other view is possible to be taken in the matter. 18. Thus, we find that there is no merit and substance in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. The conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court are hereby affirmed.