P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the Judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Krishna at Machilipatnam in S. C. No. 381 of 2001. The sole accused was convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 200. 00 in default to under go simple imprisonment for one year. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that the accused loved the deceased, Nagalakshmi and married her, just one year prior to her homicidal death. After marriage they lived happily for six months. The accused was neither doing any job, nor was attending to family necessities and started harassing the deceased, by asking her to get rice and other provisions from her parents. P. W. 1 mother of the deceased used to help by supplying provisions etc. On 31-10-1999 at about 6. 00 p. m. the accused beat the deceased, kicked her, poured kerosene and set fire on her, saying that if she is killed his problems would be solved. When the deceased raised cries neighbours rushed there. The deceased sustained extensive burn injuries. Grandmother of the deceased took her to the police station, where the deceased gave a statement before P. W. 12, the then SI of police, Pamarru. On the basis of the statement, he registered a case in Cr. No. 140 of 1999 under Section 498-A and 307 IPC. P. W. 12 arrested the accused on 9-11-1999. The deceased after undergoing treatment at University General Hospital, vijayawada was discharged and on 10-3-2000 she died i. e. , after five months of her receiving injuries. The post-mortem examination revealed that the deceased suffered 70% thermal burns and she died on account of that. The deceased might have died due to Hypoproteinomia, gross anemias, congesting cardiac failure and septicenic shock due to 70% thermal burns. ( 3 ) CHARGE under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused; but not under section 304-B IPC. The plea of the accused was one of denial. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the prosecution P. Ws. 1 to 15 were examined, Ex. P-1 to P-16 and mos 1 to 9 were marked. Ex. D-1 to D-7 were marked on behalf of the accused. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the above evidence the learned Judge held the accused guilty. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the prosecution P. Ws. 1 to 15 were examined, Ex. P-1 to P-16 and mos 1 to 9 were marked. Ex. D-1 to D-7 were marked on behalf of the accused. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the above evidence the learned Judge held the accused guilty. ( 6 ) NOW the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused is that the prosecution case on the basis of the dying declarations is not conclusively proved and that the learned Judge erroneously convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC which is not constituted as the deceased died long after, not on account of the injuries she sustained, but on account of other complications. ( 7 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that the dying declarations conclusively prove that accused himself is responsible for the death of the deceased and that the offence under section 302 IPC is constituted. ( 8 ) NOW, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal. ( 9 ) THE accused in his under section 313 cr. P. C. examination stated that the deceased was not married to him, but he had acquaintance with her and they were friends; they used to go round places; that once police caught them; they got a photograph exchanging garlands; but they were not married and on account of financial problems the deceased committed suicide. ( 10 ) THUS the accused denied that the deceased was his wife; but had admitted that he had acquaintance with the deceased and that they used to move together. This admission coupled with the evidence of p. W. 1, who stated that in the year 1998, her elder daughter, Nagalaxmi (the deceased) and the accused married at Durga temple, without her consent, can be accepted. It is suggested to this witness that they were not at all married. P. W. 2 the sister of the deceased also stated that they got married. Thus, there is material to show that though regular marriage was not performed, there was some sort of marriage and they were living together. However, as the charge is not under section 304-B IPC, strict proof of marriage may not be required. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 has further stated that on 31-10-1999 at 7. Thus, there is material to show that though regular marriage was not performed, there was some sort of marriage and they were living together. However, as the charge is not under section 304-B IPC, strict proof of marriage may not be required. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 has further stated that on 31-10-1999 at 7. 00 p. m. soon after she went home from Bandar, she learnt that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and burnt her. Immediately she went to police station, where she was informed that the deceased was sent to Government Hospital, pamarru. She went there and saw the deceased with burn injuries and the deceased told her that on that day at 6. 00 p. m. , the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire to her P. W. 2 stated that day i. e. , 31-10-1999 at 6. 30 p. m. she was informed that the deceased received burn injuries and she rushed there. By then neighbours gathered there and the deceased was lying on a cot with burn injuries on her hands and legs. She took the deceased to the house of her grandmother in a rickshaw and from there they went to Police Station, Pamarru; where police have recorded the statement of the deceased and sent her to Government hospital. The deceased told that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her. P. W. 3 is the grand mother of the deceased, being the mother of P. W. 1. Her evidence is that on that day at 6. 30 p. m. , P. W. 2 brought the deceased to her house in a rickshaw with burn injuries; that they took her to police station and that on the way when enquired, the deceased told that the accused beat her, poured kerosene and set fire to her. Thus, the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 3 is that the deceased told them as to how she suffered burn injuries. ( 12 ) P. W. 10 is the-then Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, marked as Ex. P-9. According to him, the deceased stated that her husband beat her, poured kerosene and burnt her. 1 to 3 is that the deceased told them as to how she suffered burn injuries. ( 12 ) P. W. 10 is the-then Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, marked as Ex. P-9. According to him, the deceased stated that her husband beat her, poured kerosene and burnt her. The evidence of P. W. 12, the then SI of police is that he recorded the statement of the deceased, when she was brought to the police station with burn injuries, which is ex. P-10; that he sent the deceased to the government Hospital and that he went there and by the time he went she was referred to government Hospital, Machilipatnam. He proceeded there and again recorded her statement marked as Ex. P-12. ( 13 ) THESE Exs. P-9, 10 and 12 are the dying declarations of the deceased. Ex. P-9 being the one recorded by the learned magistrate, P. W. 10 and Exs. P-10 and P-12 the dying declarations are recorded by p. W. 12, the-then SI of Police. As per ex. P-9, the deceased referred her husband as Anjaneyulu (the accused ). She further stated that her marriage with Anjaneyulu was a love marriage. Soon after the marriage, the deceased started beating her after coming drunk. On the date of the incident, the accused beat her and when she questioned, he picked up kerosene tin, poured on her, lit a matchstick and threw it on her. In Ex. P-10 several details with regard to the incident of 31-10-1999 are given stating that while she was at house the accused came fully drunk, beat her, poured kerosene and set fire to her. Ex. P-12 also shows that on 31-10-1999 at 6. 00 p. m. , while the deceased was at her house, the accused came home, poured kerosene and set fire to her. ( 14 ) AS far as Ex. P-9, the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate is concerned, there cannot be any dispute with regard to its correctness. It is suggested to p. W. 12 that Ex. P-10 is fabricated. It is also suggested to P. W. 12 that he did not record ex. P-12 from the deceased, and it was subsequently brought into existence to prove the prosecution case. There is consistency with regard to the actual incident in all the three dying declarations. It is suggested to p. W. 12 that Ex. P-10 is fabricated. It is also suggested to P. W. 12 that he did not record ex. P-12 from the deceased, and it was subsequently brought into existence to prove the prosecution case. There is consistency with regard to the actual incident in all the three dying declarations. The contention of the accused that Exs. P-10 and P-12 dying declarations are fabricated cannot be accepted, as the same are supported by ex. P-9, the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate, as well as oral dying declaration made before P. Ws. 1 to 3. ( 15 ) THE learned Senior Counsel contends that another declaration of the deceased was recorded on 1-11-1999 by a Magistrate at vijayawada, the same is suppressed and on account that the prosecution case has to be suspected. There is absolutely no material to show that any such dying declaration was recorded. In case such a dying declaration was recorded and was existing, nothing prevented the accused to get it on record. As the accused failed to do the same, now it cannot be contended that another dying declaration was suppressed. The learned sessions Judge found that the dying declarations are consistent on all aspects and as such there is no reason to disbelieve the same. We also feel, in the circumstances of the case, there is no reason to disbelieve the dying declarations. No other explanation is put forth on behalf the accused as to how the deceased caught fire. An attempt is made by him to say that the deceased committed suicide; but we are not inclined to accept this version, on account of the dying declarations. ( 16 ) THE learned Seniorcounsel appearing for the accused contends that an offence under Section 302 IPC is not constituted, as the deceased did not die on account of the burn injuries she received; but on account of other complications that developed long after the incident. The incident has taken place on 31-10-1999 and the deceased died on 10-3-2000 i. e. , after five months. The evidence of the Doctor, P. W. 8, who conducted post-mortem examination, is that the deceased might have died due to hypoproteinomia, gross anemias, congesting cardiac failure and septicenic shock due to 70% of thermal burns. Thus the deceased died on account of some complications. The evidence of the Doctor, P. W. 8, who conducted post-mortem examination, is that the deceased might have died due to hypoproteinomia, gross anemias, congesting cardiac failure and septicenic shock due to 70% of thermal burns. Thus the deceased died on account of some complications. In his cross-examination P. W. 8 has stated that hypoprotenimic may also be due to mal nutrition. Septisemia occurred due to infection. Septiceomic may subsequently develop, when the patient does not take nutritious foods, as suggesting by the attending Doctor. If contaminated food is taken by a sick person, as in the present case, septicemic may occur. He denied the suggestion that the fatal period in case of severe burns is between 24 - 48 hours; the fatal period is usually first week. P. W. 14 another Doctor, has stated that on 3-2-2000 he examined the deceased. She was recovering and most of the injuries were healed. The general condition was stable. The evidence of these two medical Officers p. Ws. 8 and 14 shows that the deceased did not die on account of the burn injuries alone; but on account of subsequent complications and also on account of her not taking proper care with regard to food and hygiene. Such being the case, as contended by, the learned senior counsel, the offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC. ( 17 ) THE learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the instant case, may be the accused has knowledge that his act of setting fire to the deceased may be dreadful to the deceased, but he did not have any intention to kill the deceased, it is only an act committed at the spur of moment. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the above circumstances, the act "committed by the accused may at the most amount an offence under Section 304-II IPC. In view of the facts present herein, we agree with the submission of the learned counsel and find the accused guilty of Section 304-II IPC. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, we hold the appellant-accused is guilty of offence under section 304-II IPC and not an offence under section 302 IPC and accordingly the conviction of the appellant-accused is modified to one under Section 304-II IPC. Consequently, the sentence of the appellant-accused is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, apart from fine of Rs. 200. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, we hold the appellant-accused is guilty of offence under section 304-II IPC and not an offence under section 302 IPC and accordingly the conviction of the appellant-accused is modified to one under Section 304-II IPC. Consequently, the sentence of the appellant-accused is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, apart from fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the accused shall be set off. ( 19 ) WITH the above modification in conviction and sentence, the appeal shall stand dismissed.