Judgment :- MALAI.SUBRAMANIAN,J. The accused in S.C.No.32 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, who was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, appeals against his conviction and sentence. The allegation against him is that on 21.1.1994 at 5 PM, he picked up a quarrel with his wife Parimala with intention to cause death, poured kerosene on her and threw a lighted match stick resulting in her death subsequently in the hospital. 2. The brief facts required to dispose of the appeal are as follows : The deceased belonged to Vilanallur village. PW1 is her father. She was married to the accused. They had a child. The accused is the sister's son of PW1. Some time prior to the occurrence, on one Friday, the deceased went to the house of her father - PW1 and gave a dhothi, which was freely given to the accused in connection with Pongal festival. The accused picked up a quarrel with his wife Parimala, since she gave the dhothi to her father - PW1 without the knowledge of the accused. On the same day, the accused went to the house of PW1, beat his wife and took her back home. 3. On 21.1.1994 at 5 PM, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased, beat her on her back with a brick and also beat her with broom stick. Thereafter, saying that he would kill her, picked up a can with kerosene, poured kerosene on her and then set her ablaze. Immediately after the commission of the offence, the accused came out of the house and the deceased also came running with flames. The neighbours put down the flames and thereafter, the accused also tried to put down the flames. The deceased was taken to Cheyyar Government Hospital by her husband – the accused. 4. PW9 – Dr.Janakiraman, Senior Surgeon, Government Hospital, Cheyyar examined the deceased, while he was informed that the deceased caught fire while cooking and thereafter, the accused put down the fire by pouring water. The doctor found 60% of burn injuries on the body. He issued ExP8 – the copy of accident register. At about 7.45 PM on the same day, he examined the accused and found burn injuries. He also issued ExP9 – the copy of accident register issued to the accused. 5. The doctor found 60% of burn injuries on the body. He issued ExP8 – the copy of accident register. At about 7.45 PM on the same day, he examined the accused and found burn injuries. He also issued ExP9 – the copy of accident register issued to the accused. 5. PW4 – the Head Constable attached to Vadavanakkambadi Police Station received VHF message from the Cheyyar Police Station about the admission of the deceased for burn injuries in the hospital. Therefore, he proceeded to the hospital, recorded the statement from the injured Parimala in the presence of the Medical Officer. The statement is ExP1. He then came to the police station and registered a case in Crime No.30 of 1994 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The printed first information report is ExP2. 6. The Inspector of Police – PW11 took up investigation. PW11 commenced the investigation at about 9.30 AM on 23.1.1994, went to the scene of crime and prepared ExP13 observation mahazar. He seized an empty plastic can MO1, broom stick MO2, and brick MO3 under ExP14 mahazar. He then proceeded to the hospital at Cheyyar, examined Parimala and recorded her statement. He also examined PW9 - the doctor and recorded his statement. At about 4.30 PM on the same day, he arrested the accused at Cheyyar Bus Stand and forwarded him for remand. 7. PW14 – successor to PW11 took up further investigation. In the meantime, PW12 – the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cheyyar, on receipt of ExP15 - requisition from the hospital, proceeded to Cheyyar hospital and recorded ExP16 - dying declaration from Parimala. PW14 received the death intimation, and then, altered the crime to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Government Hospital on 28.1.1994 and held inquest over the body of Parimala between 9.30 and 11.30 AM and prepared - ExP19 inquest report. During inquest, he examined PWS 1 to 3 and others. After inquest, he forwarded the body for autopsy. 8. PW9 commenced the post mortem at about 3 PM on the same day and found the following injuries on the deceased : "i. The case admitted to hospital with burn injury – 60% on 21.1.1994 and died on 27.1.1994 after adequate treatment as per case sheet of GH, Cheyyar; ii. After inquest, he forwarded the body for autopsy. 8. PW9 commenced the post mortem at about 3 PM on the same day and found the following injuries on the deceased : "i. The case admitted to hospital with burn injury – 60% on 21.1.1994 and died on 27.1.1994 after adequate treatment as per case sheet of GH, Cheyyar; ii. Except 60% burn injury – no other external or internal or bony or vital organ injury or disease found on her; iii. Surface area of burns is 60%l; constitute all grades; iv. G.I.tract is normal architecture; stomach empty; no abnormal substance or poison or colour change noted; no suspected poisoning features, but still, the following sent for chemical analysis as per police request : 1. Stomach 2. Intestine 3. Liver 4. Kidney 5. Sample solution." He issued ExP11 - the post mortem certificate with the opinion that the deceased died of 60% burn injuries and its complications. 9. PW14, continuing his investigation, examined PW9 again and recorded his statement. He also gave a requisition to the Court to send viscera for chemical analysis. Thereafter, his successor in office, namely, PW15 verified the investigation and examined PW4 and other witnesses and his successor - PW16 completed the investigation and filed a final report on 25.7.1995 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. 10. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him by the trial Court, he only claimed that he was innocent. He did not examine any witnesses on his side. 11. PW9 – Dr.Janakiraman would say that he saw 60% burn injuries on the body of the deceased Parimala, when she was brought to the hospital and admitted for treatment. Subsequently, after Parimala died, he did autopsy on the body of Parimala. He gave the opinion that the deceased died of 60% burn injuries and its complications. Therefore, on the medical evidence, we hold that the deceased died of burn injuries. 12. The point to be decided is as to whether those burn injuries were caused on the deceased accidentally or by the accused as alleged by the prosecution. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the first information report was made after 24 hours of delay to PW4 and therefore, no weight should be attached to ExP1. 12. The point to be decided is as to whether those burn injuries were caused on the deceased accidentally or by the accused as alleged by the prosecution. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the first information report was made after 24 hours of delay to PW4 and therefore, no weight should be attached to ExP1. His further contention is that though in ExP1 the deceased alleged that she was beaten with brick on her back and with broom stick by the accused, absolutely, there were no injuries on the body of the deceased. He would further contend that since there are three dying declarations said to have been made by the deceased and they are at variance to each other, and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and the accused should be acquitted. He also relied upon the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Dandu Lakshmi Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (1999 SCC Criminal 1176). 14. The occurrence took place on 21.1.1994 at 5 PM. Even prior to the occurrence, though the motive seems to be flimsy, the motive portion of the case has been spoken to by PW1 and the same is corroborated by the deceased in ExP1 also. According to ExP1 and PW1, one Thillan of his village, gave dhothi for Pongal festival to the accused. Since the deceased – wife of the accused thought it fit to present the dhothi to her father - PW1, she went to the house of PW1 and presented the dhothi. On knowing this, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and beat her. Thereafter, on 21.1.1994 at 5 PM, the accused set her ablaze by pouring kerosene and throwing a lighted match stick. After the occurrence, PWS 2 and 3 saw the deceased running out of the house with flames all over her body, nude. Therefore, they put down the fire. 15. It is the admitted case of the deceased later that the accused also pretended to put down the fire and he also sustained burn injuries in the course of putting down the fire. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was taken to the hospital by the accused and the neighbours. The first statement given by the deceased was to PW9, who admitted her in the hospital. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was taken to the hospital by the accused and the neighbours. The first statement given by the deceased was to PW9, who admitted her in the hospital. PW9 would say that the deceased informed him that she caught fire while cooking in an oven and her husband – the accused herein only poured water to subside the flames. 16. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this statement of the deceased assumes much importance, since it was the initial statement given by her to the doctor and therefore, as per that statement, it was only an accidental fire. 17. Though the deceased would state to PW9 that it was an accidental fire, she changed her version, while giving report to PW4 at 6.45 PM on 22.1.1994. There was absolutely no evidence available on record to infer that she could have been tutored either by her father or relatives. As a matter of fact, her father came to know of the occurrence three days later, then visited the hospital and came to know from the deceased that it was the accused, who set her ablaze. 18. The important aspect in this case is that in ExP1, the accused gave an explanation as to why she informed PW9 that she caught fire, while cooking. The later portion of ExP1 is as follows : She sticks on to this version, even while she was examined by PW12 – the Judicial Magistrate at 9.20 PM on 22.1.1994 itself. PW12 recorded ExP16, the relevant portion in ExP16 is as follows : 19. Therefore, since the deceased herself has offered an explanation as to what prompted her to tell PW9 that she caught fire while cooking, the earlier statement given to the doctor by the deceased cannot be relied upon in this case. There is absolutely no necessity for the wife to tell the Police and the Magistrate that it was her husband, who poured kerosene on her and threw a lighted match stick. 20. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased might have been tutored to change her version before the Police and the Judicial Magistrate, there is absolutely no cross examination to PW1 or any other witnesses that the deceased was tutored by any other relatives. 20. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased might have been tutored to change her version before the Police and the Judicial Magistrate, there is absolutely no cross examination to PW1 or any other witnesses that the deceased was tutored by any other relatives. The evidence on record clearly reveals that except the accused, no other relative of the deceased was present with the deceased during the time of recording the statements ExP1 and ExP16 21. The learned counsel would further contend relying upon the ruling of the Apex Court referred to supra that this contradiction in between the dying declarations should enure to the benefit of the accused. 22. The ruling referred to by the learned counsel is on different aspect. In that case, the deceased informed the Police Officer, who recorded the dying declaration that she was set to fire by her husband and mother-in-law, when she was lighting a stove for preparing coffee; but, in her dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, she stated that when she was sweeping, her mother-in-law and husband both poured kerosene on her, lighted match stick and set her to fire. In that case, there was exactly a vital contradiction as to under what circumstances, kerosene was poured and lighted match stick was thrown on the deceased. When the deceased in that case told the police that the occurrence took place, while she was lighting a stove for preparing coffee, she had informed the Judicial Magistrate that while she was sweeping, the occurrence took place. No such contradiction is available here in this case. Therefore, the ruling referred to above is of no use to the accused. 23. More over, as we have already said, the wrong information given to the doctor PW9 has been explained and set right by the deceased herself in her subsequent two dying declarations, namely, ExP1 and ExP16. The dying declarations recorded by the Police as well as the Judicial Magistrate, in the absence of any material to establish that the deceased was influenced by any other source, are enough to sustain the conviction. 24. The dying declarations recorded by the Police as well as the Judicial Magistrate, in the absence of any material to establish that the deceased was influenced by any other source, are enough to sustain the conviction. 24. The further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there were no injuries on the body of the deceased as per the post mortem certificate and the copy of the accident register and the allegation of the deceased that she was beaten either by broom stick or by brick is nothing but a lie. 25. No doubt, PW9 – the doctor did not mention either in the copy of the accident register ExP8 or in the post mortem certificate ExP11 that he saw any injury on the body of the deceased except the burn injuries. The deceased was treated for burn injuries. She had only said that the accused gave a hit with a brick on her back. When, admittedly, a lady was wearing blouse and saree, we cannot expect any abrasion on the skin simply because she was given a hit with a brick on the back. More over, beating with a broom stick may not cause any injury at all, since she would have been wearing saree at the time of being beaten. But, only subsequently, after pouring kerosene and setting her to fire, she had to remove her clothes and then, rushed outside nude. Therefore, there was absolutely no possibility for her to sustain any visible injury on her body. 26. Even otherwise, when the doctor – PW9 was treating her for 60% burn injuries with a view to save her life, he would not have noticed any small abrasion or contusion on her back. More over, when the skin is scorched because of burns, the doctor could not have noticed any abrasion or contusion, which may not be visible on the skin. The mere absence of other injuries except burn injuries in ExP8 and ExP11 does not falsify the case of the prosecution that prior to setting her to fire, the accused assaulted her with broom stick and brick. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 27. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 27. In the result, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed on the accused is confirmed and the criminal appeal is dismissed.