JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J.:---This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Case No. 59/1997, whereunder the appellants were convicted for the offence under section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- I/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2.The prosection case, in brief, is that the victim-deceased Sangeeta was married to one Devidas Shiodas on 5th of May 1996. The appellant No. 1 Shiodas s/o. Vishramji Dhakade was father-in-law and the appellant No. 2 Suman Girdhar Gaikwad was a sister-in-law of deceased Sangeeta. Deceased Sangeeta was living with her parents even after the marriage for about 7 to 8 months and she was brought back to her matrimonial house some few days before 21st of April, 1997. It appears from the record that Sangeeta was not happy as there was ill-treatment to her by both the appellants. That is how, she lived with her parents even after the marriage for a considerable long period and it was after much persuasion by her husband Devidas that she was brought back to the matrimonial house. Her grievance was that the appellant No. 1 used to harass her on consuming liquor. Even the appellant No. 2 used to ill-treat her. However, the role of her husband Devidas was very passive and that is how, he was successful in bringing her back from her parents house. 3.The incident in question which gave rise to this prosecution against the appellants, took place on 21st April, 1997, at the house of the appellant No. 1. That day, when Sangeeta was in the house, both the appellants set her on fire after having droused her with kerosene. She sustained burns. She was immediately taken to the Cottage hospital at Paratwada. One Raosaheb Raut (P.W. 4), who was Police Patil of village Saikheda, found that Sangeeta was being carried in a cart and she has sustained burn injuries. He, therefore, went to Sirajgaon Police Station and lodged report Exh. 17. 4.While Sangeeta was undergoing treatment in the Cottage hospital, A.S.I. Uttamrao (D.W. 1), who was attached to the Police Station, Paratwada went to the hospital and recorded statement of Sangeeta vide Exh. 49. Thereafter, in that hospital itself, her dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. He, therefore, went to Sirajgaon Police Station and lodged report Exh. 17. 4.While Sangeeta was undergoing treatment in the Cottage hospital, A.S.I. Uttamrao (D.W. 1), who was attached to the Police Station, Paratwada went to the hospital and recorded statement of Sangeeta vide Exh. 49. Thereafter, in that hospital itself, her dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Achalpur vide Exh. 52. In both these dying declarations, Sangeeta disclosed that she caught fire while cooking in the house, when her saree fell on the fire of hearth. It appears that Sangeeta was removed to the Civil Hospital, Amravati by the appellant No. 1 and message was given to her parents namely Sukhdeo (P.W. 1) and Leelabai (P.W. 2). After receiving the message, Sukhdeo (P.W. 1) reached Civil Hospital and there, he found that his daughter Sangeeta had suffered burns. When he enquired with her, she disclosed him that her father-in-law and sister-in-law have set her on fire as she refused to cook food, as she was not feeling well. She also disclosed to her father that her father-in-law had forced her to tell lie in the hospital at Paratwada that burn injuries were suffered by her when she was cooking food. Sangeetas mother Leelabai (P.W. 2) also reached the hospital and to her also, Sangeeta disclosed as to what had happened in the house on that day and how she caught fire. After this disclosure was made by Sangeeta to her parents, both the appellants, who were till then with her in the hospital, abruptly left that place and they did not return. Sangeeta died on 23rd April, 1997 in the hospital. Neither the appellants of Sangeeta nor Devidas, her husband, attended her cremation. 5.In the hospital, on 22nd April, 1997, the Special Judicial Magistrate Mr. Dhole (P.W. 6) recorded dying declaration of Sangeeta vide Exh. 27 in presence of the Medical Officer Dr. Warkari (P.W. 9). In fact, the Special Judicial Magistrate Mr. Dhole gave requisition to the Medical Officer Dr. Warkari for examining the victim Sangeeta and to certify that she was fit to give statement and accordingly, he issued certificate Exh. 38 certifying that Sangeeta was conscious and fit to give statement. Then her statement was recorded in question and answer form by Mr. In fact, the Special Judicial Magistrate Mr. Dhole gave requisition to the Medical Officer Dr. Warkari for examining the victim Sangeeta and to certify that she was fit to give statement and accordingly, he issued certificate Exh. 38 certifying that Sangeeta was conscious and fit to give statement. Then her statement was recorded in question and answer form by Mr. Dhole, in which she has categorically stated that the appellants set her on fire on account of bickering between them and ill-treatment that was meted out to her in the house. 6.As stated earlier, the offence was registered at Crime No. 42/97, under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on 22-4-1997 and the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer i.e. Police Station Incharge of Shirajgaon Police Station. During the course of investigation, dead body of Sangeeta was sent for post-mortem and Dr. Murlidhar Parikh (P.W. 3) carried out autopsy on the dead body and submitted report Exh. 15. The doctor found that deceased Sangeeta had sustained 72% burns and probable cause of death was shock due to 72% burns. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Achalpur, where the appellants were tried. 7.The appellants, to the charge Exh. 2, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, prosecution examined, in all, 11 witnesses including Sukhdeo (P.W. 1), Leelabai (P.W. 2), Dr. Murlidhar Parikh (P.W. 3), Raosaheb Raut (P.W. 4), Balwant Dhole (P.W. 6), Special Judicial Magistrate who recorded dying declaration in the Civil Hospital at Amravati vide Exh. 38. Then the accused were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They have denied the prosecution evidence and the circumstances which went against them. 8.The accused (appellants) examined their witness Uttamrao Suryabhan Narwas (D.W. 1), who was an A.S.I. attached to the Police Station, Paratwada, to prove the dying declaration Exh. 49 recorded at the Cottage hospital, Achalpur and one Bhaurao Koram (D.W. 2). The learned trial Court Judge accepted the evidence of witnesses Sukhdeo and Leelabai, to whom Sangeeta made oral dying declaration implicating both the appellants for burning her, so also, the statement of Sangeeta in the dying declaration Exh. 28, recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate Mr. Dhole and came to the conclusion that victim Sangeeta was done to death by the appellants by setting her on fire. 28, recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate Mr. Dhole and came to the conclusion that victim Sangeeta was done to death by the appellants by setting her on fire. The appellants were, therefore, convicted and sentenced as stated earlier. Their conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal. 9.We have heard Mr. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellants. He submitted that the dying declaration Exh. 49, which is first in time, totally nullifies the prosecution case against the appellants. That is further reinforced by the dying declaration Exh. 52, which again came to be recorded at Paratwada by the Executive Magistrate. In both these dying declarations, the deceased has, in clear words, stated that she caught fire while she was cooking food in the house. He also pointed out that there is, inter se, discrepancy between the evidence of Sukhdeo (P.W. 1) and Leelabai (P.W. 2) as to presence of the appellants in the hospital at Amravati. It is submitted that declaration given by the deceased before the Special Judicial Magistrate Mr. Dhole, vide dying declaration Exh. 28, was the outcome of influence on her by her parents and that can be spell out from the report Exh. 11 which Sukhdeo lodged to the Police Station. He, therefore, submitted that there is glaring discrepancy between the dying declaration recorded from time to time and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances attending the case, it was not at all safe to place reliance on the subsequent dying declaration Exh. 28, so also, oral disclosure made by the deceased to her parents and there was no plausible reason to discard the first dying declaration Exh. 49. He submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in holding the appellants responsible for homicidal death of deceased Sangeeta. He urged that the appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted. 10.We have also heard Mrs. Jog, the learned A.P.P. for respondent. She has stoutly repelled the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants placing reliance on the dying declaration Exh. 49. She pointed out that declaration made by the deceased in the dying declaration Exh. 49 was an outcome of pressure and influence on the deceased by the appellants and they could achieve this only because of absence of parents of the deceased. 49. She pointed out that declaration made by the deceased in the dying declaration Exh. 49 was an outcome of pressure and influence on the deceased by the appellants and they could achieve this only because of absence of parents of the deceased. She further pointed out that, as soon as Sangeeta disclosed to her parents in the Civil hospital, Amravati that the appellants got her dying declaration recorded by exercising pressure on her, both the appellants left the hospital and then they kept themselves away, so much that, they did not even attend cremation of Sangeeta. She further pointed out that the report of Chemical Analyser was positive regarding residues of kerosene on the quilt. This circumstance falsifies the claim of defence that Sangeeta caught fire while cooking food in the house as a result of her saree having fallen on the fire of hearth. That apart, the appellants have not explained regarding positive finding of kerosene residues on the quilt. She, therefore, submitted that the trial Court was right in accepting the dying declaration Exh. 28, so also, oral dying declaration made by the victim to her parents and finding both the appellants guilty for committing murder of Sangeeta. 11.Sangeeta was, admittedly, living with her parents on 21st April, 1997. It is further admitted, as not disputed by the defence, that she caught fire and sustained burns on that day in the house and further, on 23rd April, 1997, she died in Civil hospital, Amravati and her death was homicidal, as per the opinion given by Dr. Murlidhar Parikh. She died as a result of shock due to 72% burns. Prosecution mainly relied on dying declaration Exh. 28 as well as oral dying declaration made to the witnesses Sukhdeo and Leelabai. 12.We have gone through the evidence of witness Sukhdeo (P.W. 1), wherein he has categorically stated that when he inquired with his daughter Sangeeta, who was in the Civil Hospital, Amravati, Sangeeta (deceased), in turn, made an inquiry if her father-in-law was present there. He then consoled her that it hardly makes any difference even if her father-in-law was present and that she should disclose everything that is true. She then complained to him that her father-in-law Shiodas had forced her to speak lie in the hospital at Paratwada that the burn injuries were suffered by her when she was cooking food. He then consoled her that it hardly makes any difference even if her father-in-law was present and that she should disclose everything that is true. She then complained to him that her father-in-law Shiodas had forced her to speak lie in the hospital at Paratwada that the burn injuries were suffered by her when she was cooking food. She then stated that she was ill for two days and even then Shiodas had asked her as to why she did not cook food. Then she disclosed that Shiodas asked his daughter i.e. the appellant Suman to get a tin of kerosene and after that, she was caught and kerosene was sprinkled on her person and she was then set on fire with a lighted match stick. 13.The witness Leelabai, in her evidence, has stated that Sangeeta told her that her father-in-law asked her to tell that the burn injuries were suffered by her while cooking food and if she would tell the truth, she would be left to her own care and that she would die without treatment. She further disclosed that, as she was not well for last 2-3 days, she told her father-in-law that she would not cook food. But then, her father-in-law asked her to cook food and thereafter, her sister-in-law Suman brought kerosene, poured it on her person and set her on fire. 14.Both these witnesses were subjected to cross-examination by the defence. But their evidence on material particulars remained undisturbed. Defence could not make a dent in their testimony. The factum of disclosure by the deceased to her parents, as stated by the witnesses, is not disputed by the defence. Therefore, there is a reason to believe and accept the testimony of both the witnesses on this material aspect. 15.Then we come to the dying declaration recorded by the witness Dhole (P.W. 6). Prosecution has led evidence of Dr. Warkari (P.W. 9), who has issued certificate Exhibit 27, after examining Sangeeta in the hospital, to the effect that she was conscious and fit to give statement. The evidence of witness Dhole shows that the dying declaration Exhibit 28 was recorded in question and answer form and thereafter, Dr. Prosecution has led evidence of Dr. Warkari (P.W. 9), who has issued certificate Exhibit 27, after examining Sangeeta in the hospital, to the effect that she was conscious and fit to give statement. The evidence of witness Dhole shows that the dying declaration Exhibit 28 was recorded in question and answer form and thereafter, Dr. Warkari has again examined Sangeeta and gave a certificate Exhibit 39 making it clear that the patient was conscious and oriented to time and place to give her dying declaration and was conscious too after dying declaration was recorded. It is in this background that, we have to assess credibility and truthfulness of the declaration made by the deceased before witness Dhole, as recorded in the dying declaration Exhibit 28. 16.It is very material to note that the very first question that was put to the witness was as to why she was giving her statement for second time. The answer to this question by the victim was that "my father-in-law named Shiodas had pressurized and asked me not to tell truth and asked me to tell, on inquiry, that lap of my saree caught fire, otherwise, he would not take me to the hospital and leave there itself for dying". We have gone through the evidence of witness Dhole. He has been cross-examined by the defence at length. But, nothing has been elicited in his evidence so as to make a dent in his testimony. Even otherwise, having ascertained that the victim Sangeeta was well conscious and competent to make a statement, there was no reason to doubt the statement recorded by witness Mr. Dhole. There was no reason for him to record a false statement. In these circumstances, we have to say that the trial Court was right in accepting the dying declaration Exhibit 28. It is found that, in the said dying declaration Exhibit 28, the deceased has made her mind very clear by clinchingly stating that the appellants set her on fire in the house after having drowsed her with kerosene. It is the matter of record that, after she was burnt, an attempt was made to extinguish fire by putting a quilt on her person. That quilt was sent to the chemical analyser and as stated earlier, report of the chemical analyser Exhibit 45 shows that there was detection of kerosene residues on the quilt positively. It is the matter of record that, after she was burnt, an attempt was made to extinguish fire by putting a quilt on her person. That quilt was sent to the chemical analyser and as stated earlier, report of the chemical analyser Exhibit 45 shows that there was detection of kerosene residues on the quilt positively. This circumstance, according to us, amply supports the statement of victim which she made before the Executive Magistrate Mr. Dhole that she was set on fire by the appellants after she was droused with kerosene. This again lends assurance to the earlier dying declaration which the deceased has made to her parents. In the circumstances, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the declaration made by the victim to her parents as well as the Executive Magistrate Mr. Dhole was the outcome of influence being caused by her parents does not stand to the reasons. In addition to this, abrupt absence of the appellants from the hospital, till the time she was cremated, speaks volume. 17.Much has been made by the defence of the dying declaration Exhibit 49, in which, as stated earlier, the deceased has stated that she caught fire while she was cooking food. It is, no doubt, true that this declaration is very much relied upon by the defence, as, in this dying declaration both the appellants have been eliminated or excluded. That is the reason why the defence has made efforts to get that dying declaration (Exhibit 49) proved by examining A.S.I. Uttamrao Narvas (D.W. 1). But then, having regard to abundant evidence of the witnesses Sukhdeorao and Leelabai showing that Sangeeta was forced to make a false statement and also finding of kerosene residues positively on the quilt, possibility of her death, being accidental death by fire, is totally ruled out. Therefore, there is no hesitation in saying that the statement in dying declaration Exhibit 49 is a false statement recorded at the instance of appellant No. 1. Therefore, there is no hesitation in saying that the statement in dying declaration Exhibit 49 is a false statement recorded at the instance of appellant No. 1. 18.Taking into consideration the dying declaration Exhibit 28, as also, the oral dying declaration made to Sukhdeorao and Leelabai, as also, the circumstantial evidence as to absence of appellants from the hospital and finding of kerosene residues positively on the quilt, it is to be said that prosecution has established beyond doubt that Sangeeta was done to death by the appellants by setting her on fire and as such, they have committed her murder. Therefore, the trial Court was right in holding the appellants guilty of the offence for committing murder of Sangeeta. The appeal merits no consideration. The same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----