BHATTACHARYA,J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, vii Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1997 (S. T. No. 1 of November 97) on 08. 05. 1998. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the Prosecution case is that on 11. 07. 1997 at about 23. 30 hrs. while the victim Puspa Devi was cooking night meal on a kerosene stove in her room in the ground floor of 67/41 Strand Road, commonly known as Posta Bazar, her husband accused Paresh Hela came there being drunk, abused her with filthy language and suddenly poured kerosene oil on her person from a plastic jar followed by setting fire with a match stick resulting in her 70% burn injuries and removal to R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital where her declarations were recorded and she ultimately succumbed to injuries at about 2. 15 p. m. on 19. 07. 1997. Hence, the accused was charged under Section 302 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE defence case, as suggested to P. Ws. and as contended by the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , is that the victim caught fire due to accident of stove while she was cooking on a kerosene stove. She did not give any dying declaration either before doctor or before police. After supper he went out for taking betel and on his way back from betel-shop he heard a hue and cry from his house, took his wife in an auto rickshaw to hospital and admitted her there. ( 4 ) 15 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, while none was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials-on-record, the learned Court below found the accused guilty under Section 302 I. P. C. , convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused his preferred the present appeal. ( 6 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the above order of conviction and sentence. ( 7 ) THE vital witnesses in this case are P. Ws. ( 6 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the above order of conviction and sentence. ( 7 ) THE vital witnesses in this case are P. Ws. 2, 5, 6, 11, 13 and 15, others being formal. ( 8 ) P. WS. 1 and 7 are photographer and plan-maker respectively. P. Ws. 3 and 4 are witnesses to the seizure of kerosene stove (Mat Ext. Ill), plastic jar containing kerosene oil. (Mat Ext. IV) and one match box. (Mat. Ext. V) made by police (P. W.-15) from the P. O. i. e. , 67/41 Strand Road, Calcutta on 12. 07. 1997 at about 2. 00 p. m. under a seizure list (Ext. 2 ). P. W. 8 held inquest over the dead body of the victim Puspa Devi at R. G. Kar dead house and found severe burn injuries all over her body including neck, chest, abdomen and hands followed by removal of the said dead body to N. R. S. morgue for PM examination and his sending inquest report (Ext. 4) to O. C. , Jorabagan P. S. against the requisition. P. W. 10-Statistical assistant attached to the Department of Medical Records at R. G. Kar Hospital, is a witness to the seizure of bed-head ticket in respect of patient Puspa Devi made by the Police Officer (P. W. 15) on 19. 08. 1997 under a s. list (Ext. 5 ). P. W. 12 carried a patient badly burnt along with 4/5 persons from near Jorabagan P. S. in his auto rickshawto R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital on 11. 07. 1997. P. W. 14 Sachidulal Pahari, Assistant Director in the Chemistry section of State Forensic science Laboratory, on the requisition of D. C. , N. D. and N. S. D. , Calcutta in connection with Jorabagan P. S. Case No. 89 dated 12. 07. 1997 visited the P. O. on 14. 07. 1997, examined an empty polythene jar without any lid on the mouth bearing deposit inside, detected mineral oil, solvent washing extracts and submitted his report (Ext. 11 A) and stated that the stove and match box were examined by Dr. P. Sinha, Regional Assistant Director in the Physics Division of state Forensic Science Laboratory. ( 9 ) P. W. 2 Dr. 11 A) and stated that the stove and match box were examined by Dr. P. Sinha, Regional Assistant Director in the Physics Division of state Forensic Science Laboratory. ( 9 ) P. W. 2 Dr. S. C. Poddar, S. M. O. of R. G. Kar Medical College and hospital stated that on 11. 07. 1997 at about 11. 55 p. m. a patient named puspa Devi was brought to the Emergency Department by her husband paresh Hela who reported that the incident of burn occurred at his residence while she was cooking egg on a kerosene stove. He examined the patient who sustained severe burn in the trunk and back i. e. both chest and back, lower part of both legs, shoulder area and also face partly and was very much irritable and was crying. The patient was admitted and sent to Burn ward. The case was registered with the police report register and police was duly informed. P. W. 13 Dr. Durga Pada Ghose, House Staff of the said College and Hospital, deposed that at about 00. 15 a. m. the said patient Puspa Devi made a statement that while she was cooking food at their kitchen on a stove, suddenly her husband (regular drunk) used slang languages to her, poured kerosene oil all over her body and set fire. The patient was in serious condition with 70% burn and as she was severely injured in both of her hands, her thumb impression could not be taken in his report (Ext. 7 ). She was admitted in Female Burn Ward, in the Casualty Block for observation (surgery ). He treated the patient and applied various medicines as per bed-head ticket (Ext. 8) (Coll. ). On 12. 07. 1997 at 2. 55 p. m. while he was in his hostel, he was called by a police officer (P. W. 15) and taken to the ward where the patient was lodged. The police officer recorded the statement (Ext. 9) of the victim lady in his presence and he made an endorsment with his signature thereon. On 19. 07. 1997 at 2. 15 p. m. the patient died due to cardio respiratory failure with septicaemia and he issued the death certificate (Ext. 10 (. P. W. 5 parul Bala Hela on being informed by Manoj Hela, younger brother of the accused, on 12. 07. On 19. 07. 1997 at 2. 15 p. m. the patient died due to cardio respiratory failure with septicaemia and he issued the death certificate (Ext. 10 (. P. W. 5 parul Bala Hela on being informed by Manoj Hela, younger brother of the accused, on 12. 07. 1997 about sustaining minor burn injuries on hand by her daughter Puspa, went to the R. G. Kar Hospital with her husband Buddha hela (P. W. 6), found her daughter in a precarious condition as almost all her body was burnt, she was conscious and crying out of pain. On her query she reported that her husband Paresh Hela set fire on her person after pouring kerosene oil on her body from back. Similar is the evidence of P. W. 6 who further stated that his daughter used to visit his house occasionally and report that she was tortured by her husband in drunken condition occasionally, but they never lodged any complaint before the police about such ill-treatment on their daughter. P. W. 11 Dr. S. K. Bhowmick, Demonstrator of N. R. S. Medical College and Hospital, on holding P. M. examination over the dead body of the victim, being identified by P. W. 9 constable Barun Kumar Das, on 20/7/1997 at about 3. 15 p. m. found infected ulcers resulting from burn injuries over the face and neck all over, chest all over, abdomen all over and upper 1/3rd region in its anterior aspect and some central portions around umbilicus in anterior aspect and all over the posterior aspect, both upper extremity with hand all over, left thigh all over in upper half portion in anterior, medical and posterior, right thigh all over in upper half portion and later and posterior, both legs all over in lower half portion, both buttocks all over, the injuries showing evidence of vital reaction, base and margin of injuries covered with pus and necrosed slough and opined that the death was due to septic absorption resulting from infected burn injuries as above, ante mortem in nature. P. W. 15, S. I. Subrata Mukherjee, on receipt of the medical certificate of Puspa Devi on 12. 07. 1997 at about 12. 30. P. W. 15, S. I. Subrata Mukherjee, on receipt of the medical certificate of Puspa Devi on 12. 07. 1997 at about 12. 30. p. m. via Chitpur P. S. that she was admitted to R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital had been to that hospital, on coming to learn from the doctor of Emergency Unit about her admission in bed No. 28. in Burn Unit, met the sister of that Unit, requested her to arrange for a doctor to help him to talk with the patient. The sister-in-charge called Dr. Durga Pada Ghosh (P. W 13) and in his presence he examined the patient Puspa Devi who was conscious and made a statement that while she was cooking her food, her husband being drunk came, abused her in filthy language and poured kerosene 6il from behind and set fire with a match stick. He recorded the said statement (Ext. 9) in question-answer form, read over and explained the same to the patient who admitted it to be correct and then it was signed by him and also by doctor with his endorsement. He contacted O. C. , Jorabagan P. S. over phone, narrated the entire incident and he permitted him to take cognizance and to take up the investigation of the case. From hospital he went to the P. O. at 67/41 Strand Road, Calcutta, visited the same, seized one plastic jar having smell of kerosene oil, one match box of "golden Light" brand with sticks inside and one iron made stove with tank fitted in a side under a s. List (Ext. 2) in presence of P. Ws. 3 and 4, examined witnesses available at the spot viz parents of the victim, one Babu Dutta and the seizure witnesses. He arrested the accused from his house on way to police station, examined driver of auto rickshaw (P. W. 12)who carried the patient to the hospital, returned to the P. S. with the accused and seized materials, drew up the F. I. R. (Ext. 12) and started Jorabagan p. S. case No. 89 dated 12. 07. 1997. He sent the seized exhibits to State forensic Laboratory for examination, forwarded the accused to Court with a prayer for police remand, took photograph of the P. O. with the help of photographer (P. W. 1) and subsequently of the victim in the police morgue at n. R. S. Hospital. 07. 1997. He sent the seized exhibits to State forensic Laboratory for examination, forwarded the accused to Court with a prayer for police remand, took photograph of the P. O. with the help of photographer (P. W. 1) and subsequently of the victim in the police morgue at n. R. S. Hospital. He utilized the services of Dr. Pahari (P. W. 14) who visited the P. O. and submitted his report (Ext 11 A ). He collected the death certificate of the victim and submitted a prayer for converting the section of the offence from 307 I. P. C. to Section 302 I. P. C. He also requisitioned the services of s. I. S. Ali (P. W. 8) of Chitpur P. S. for holding inquest over the dead body of the victim. On his requisition the plan-maker (P. W. 7) visited the spot and drew up a sketch map fo the P. O. (Exts. 3, 3a and 3b ). He sent the dead body to the N. R. S police morgue through constable Barun Kumar Das (P. W. 9), collected the report of PM examination, report of forenssic experts, seized the bed-head ticket of the victim under a S. List and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused. ( 10 ) THE defence has taken two-fold pleas, viz. one as put forward by the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , is that after supper he went out for taking betel and on his way back from betel shop he heard a hue and cry from his house and took his wife to hospital and the other, the victim Puspa Devi sustained burn injury on account of explosion of stove at the time of her cooking meal. So far as the first plea is concerned, onus to prove alibi is on the accused as it is a matter within his special knowledge, and such plea of alibi when taken by an accused must be proved by him and he is to substantiate and make it reasonably probable. He must lead evidence to show that he was so far off at the moment of the crime from the place when the offence was committed and that he could not have committed the offence. He must lead evidence to show that he was so far off at the moment of the crime from the place when the offence was committed and that he could not have committed the offence. Here, no evidence was adduced by the accused in support of the above contention nor any suggestion in this regard was put to any witness. The plea taken during examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. without being suggested to witnesses is of no aid to the defence. Moreover, the above story of going out after supper does not stand on the face of the prosecution as also defence story that at the time of cooking the incident took place. In other words, when meal was not yet ready but was in the process of preparation, the question of his going out after supper is out of the way. That apart, it is the specific evidence of I. O. (P. W. 15) that at the time of arrest of the accused from his house on 12. 07. 1997 the accused was also found with burn injury on his person which necessarily leads to the inference that when his wife was ablaze and he tried to extinguish the fire, he might have sustained burn injuries for that reason. Therefore, considering the above aspects, the said alibi is falsified. ( 11 ) AS regards the second plea, no suggestion in this regard to was given either to P. W. 11 or to P. W. 13. Nevertheless, the FSL, Report (Ext. 11b) reveals that the piston head and pressure regulating key of the stove in question were found missing and after replacing those parts the stove may be put into normal working condition. In other words, had it been a case of explosion of stove, there was no scope for putting it into normal working condition by only replacing the piston head and key of the stove. Moreover, in case of explosion of stove, front portion only would have been affected by burn and not all over the body as depicted in the testimony of P. W. 11. Therefore, this defence story too is negated. ( 12 ) THERE are three dying declarations, two of which are recorded, one (Ext. 7) by P. W.-13 on 12. 07. 1997 at about 00. . 15 a. m. at R. G. Kar Medical college and Hospital and the other (Ext. Therefore, this defence story too is negated. ( 12 ) THERE are three dying declarations, two of which are recorded, one (Ext. 7) by P. W.-13 on 12. 07. 1997 at about 00. . 15 a. m. at R. G. Kar Medical college and Hospital and the other (Ext. 9) in the form of question and answer by I. O. (P. W.-15) at the said hospital in presence of P. W.-13 at about 2. 55 p. m. on 12. 07. 1997. Another is oral made by the victim before her parents (P. Ws. 5 and 6)on 12. 07. 1997. The gist of both the said recorded statements are same that on 11. 07. 1997 at about 11. 30 p. m. while she was cooking on stove in her kitchen, her husband in drunken condition ab'used her filthily and suddenly poured kerosene oil from behind and set fire with a match stick. In the statements recorded by I. O. , to a query as to who others were present at that time, the victim answered that pare. nts-in-law were present but they fled away on fear. Similar is the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 6 regarding the reason for sustaining burn injuries of their daughter Puspa. ( 13 ) MR. Sudipta Moitra, learned Counsel forthe appellant, on referring to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd edition, page 314 and relying upon the case of Padman Meherv. State of Orissa, reported in 1980 (Supp.) SCC 362 assailed the above dying declarations contending that a person with such severe burn injuries of 70% which is of third degree and may be fatal within 24 to 48 hrs. cannot be expected to give any declaration. He further contended that no hospital staff was associated by way of putting signature on Ext. 7 at the time of recording of the same by P. W.-13. Referring to the bed-head ticket (Ext. 8 (coll.) Mr. Moitra further contended that after application of pathidine and fenergan injection as prescribed, it is impossible for a patient to talk and as such no reliance should be placed upon the said declarations without corroboration from independent source. The principle on which the dying declarations are admitted in evidence, is based upon the legal maxim "nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire" i. e. a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. The principle on which the dying declarations are admitted in evidence, is based upon the legal maxim "nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire" i. e. a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. It has always to be kept in mind that though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is wrothwhile to note that as the maker of the statement is not subjected to cross-examination, it is essential for the Court to instant that dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court is obliged to rule out the possibility of the statement being the result of either tutoring, prompting or vindictive or product of imagination. Before relying upon a dying declaration, the Court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. Once the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration was true, voluntary and not influenced by any extraneous consideration, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration as rule requiring corroboration is not a rule of law but only a rule of prudence, as was observed in Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1814 . Here, the incident took place on 11. 07. 1997 at about 11. 30 p. m. , the victim was brought by the accused at about 11. 55 p. m. to the emergency of R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital wherefrom she was immediately shifted to Burn Ward where she made the said statement before p. W. 13 who recorded the same (Ext. 7) at about 00. 15 a. m. There is nothing to indicate in his evidence that the patient was not conscious or was not in a fit state of mind. It is his specific evidence that as the patient's hands were severely injured her LTI could not be taken on the said statement. Merely because no hospital staff was associated by way of putting his/her signature on the statement, it is no ground for raising any doubt about veracity of the testimony of P. W 13 and the said document (Ext. 7) P. W 13 being a medical officer of a Government hospital cannot be said to have any personal interest in the matter. 7) P. W 13 being a medical officer of a Government hospital cannot be said to have any personal interest in the matter. Whatever he observed and did during the course of his official duty, it will be deemed to be correct unless contrary is shown. Fenergan is a minor sedative whose effect would be drowsiness after lapse of sometime and that too for not long period. There is nothing to suggest in the evidence of P. W. 13 that pathidine or fenergan injection was applied immediately after bringing the patient to Burn Ward before his recording the statement of the victim. Pathidine, as it appears, was applied on 14. 07. 1997. No question was also put to P. W. 13 wnen either of the said two injections was applied. As regards Ext. 9 recorded by P. W. 15 on 12. 07. 1997 at about 14. 55 hrs. , it bears an endorsement of P. W. 13 that the patient gave the statement in her conscious mind, but she was not in a position to sign due to her severe burn injuries. In regard to the contention of Mr. Moitra that though the victim was alive for more than eight days, there was no attempt on the part of I. O. to record her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. by a Magistrate, it may be observed that duplicating of evidence is not necessary. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. Conviction on dying declaration alone is legal if it is found true, voluntary, conscious and made with mormal understanding and the maker was in fit physical condition to make the declaration. If it is free from any embellishment or distortion and wholly reliable it can form the basis of conviction even without any corroboration. In this case, the evidence of P. Ws. 13 and 15 is fully corroborated by the parents (P. Ws. 5 and 6) before whom the victim gave the same declaration as above on 12. 07. 1997. It is the further evidence of P. W. 6 that during the occasional visit of his daughter to his house, she used to report that she was tortured by her husband in drunken condition occasionally, about which there is no denial in his cross-examination. 07. 1997. It is the further evidence of P. W. 6 that during the occasional visit of his daughter to his house, she used to report that she was tortured by her husband in drunken condition occasionally, about which there is no denial in his cross-examination. Oral dying declaration implicating the accused made by the victim before the relatives or neighbourers serves as corroborating material. In this connection, the case of State (Delhi Administration) v. Lakshman, reported in 1986 SCC (Cr.) 2 at 29 may be relied on. Having read the evidence of those witnesses and the two statements, we are of the view that the same have the touch of intrinsic truth. ( 14 ) MR. Moitra contended that despite knowledge of the reason for burn injuries sustained by his daughter in the morning of 12. 09. 1997 P. W. 6 did not lodge any F. I. R. which is beyond the normal conduct of a father and so no reliance should be placed upon the testimony of P. Ws. 5 and 6. On the basis of the said statement of the victim (Ext. 7) recorded by P. W. 13 which was received by P. W. 15 on 12. 07. 1997 at about 12. 30 p. m. F. I. R. under section 307 I. P. C. (Ext. 12) was registered against the accused. No question was put to P. W. 6 whether he was aware of starting of any case against the accused or what action he took after hearing his daughter. It is the evidence of P. W. 15 that after visiting the P. O. , seizure of kerosene stove etc. he recorded the statements of the available witnesses including the parents of the victim which shows that P. Ws. 5 and 6 were still present there. So, when police had already taken up investigation, the question of lodging further f. I. R. on the part of P. W. 6 is redundant. Therefore, failure to take action on the part of P. W. 6 in the above circumstances is no reason for adverse presumption against the conduct of P. W. 6 and to discard the testimony of p. Ws. 5 and 6. ( 15 ) ON referring to the cause of injury as reported by the patient party (accused) to the emergency and as reflected in the report (Ext. 5 and 6. ( 15 ) ON referring to the cause of injury as reported by the patient party (accused) to the emergency and as reflected in the report (Ext. 1) of P. W. 2 that the incident of burn took place accidentally during cooking of egg on the kerosene stove, Mr. Moitra next contended that the victim did not oppose to the said reporting. There is nothing to indicate that the said reporting which is usually done at the counter or at the table of the attending physician was done in the presence of the victim and accordingly the remark "accidental" which will not wipe out the efficacy of the above two declarations as also the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 6. ( 16 ) LASTLY, Mr. Moitra contended that as the victim died after more than eight days, the incident took place under the influence of liquor and the accused did not try to flee away nor had any intention to commit murder, the offence comes under the ambit of Section 304 (II ). Mr. Safiullah, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that there is no scope for bringing the case within the fold of Section 85 I. P. C. orto invoke Section 304 (II) I. P. C. In the case of murder, the offender has a positive intention and knowledge. He assaults on the victim with the intention of causing death or with a definite knowledge that-i) the bodily injury inflicted by him would cause death, or ii) the injury would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or iii) the injury was so imminently dangerous that it must cause death. Motive prompts a man to form an intention. Intention and knowldege in many cases merge into each other and intention can be presumed from knowledge, as was held in the case of Basdev v. State of pepsu, reported in AIR 1956 SC 489. This intention is to be gathered from all the facts and circumstances of the case. Intention to cause death is not always necessary. Intention to cause injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is enough to bring the accused within the ambit of section 302 I. P. C. ( 17 ) QUI peccat ebrius, luat sobrius, i. e. let him who sins when drunk be punished when sober. Intention to cause death is not always necessary. Intention to cause injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is enough to bring the accused within the ambit of section 302 I. P. C. ( 17 ) QUI peccat ebrius, luat sobrius, i. e. let him who sins when drunk be punished when sober. Drunkenness makes no difference to the knowldege with which a man is credited. If a man knew what the natural consequences of his acts were, he must be presumed to have intended to cause them, as was held in the case of Basdev (supra ). Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse. In the present case, the accused who is a regular drunkard, abused the victim filthily and suddenly poured kerosene oil on her person and set fire. Absence of proved incapacity to form the stated intention brings him to charge of murder. Drunken state of the accused spurred him to violence is not enough to bestow any immunity on the accused, so, the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not at all sustainable. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, there being no material to interfere with the decision of the learned Court below, the appeal be dismissed. ( 19 ) THE impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is hereby confirmed. Alamats, if any, be destroyed after the period of appeal is over.