T. MEENA KUMARI, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal is preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused for the offences sunder Sections 498-A, 302 and 302 read with Section 201 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge Vizianagaram, in sessions Case No. 40 of 2001 on 19-10-2001. ( 2 ) ORIGINALLY, the Sessions Case has been preferred against three accused, viz. , A-1 and two others. On the acquittal of the sessions case against them, the present appeal is preferred against A1 and two others. But, at the time of admission, a Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the appeal against A-2 and A-3 as per the order dated 19-4-2004. Therefore, the present appeal is being proceeded with against A-1 alone. ( 3 ) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: a-1 to A-3 are the residents of vizianagaram. A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1. A-1 is the husband of the deceased-Ratna kumari and A-2 and A-3 are the parents-in-law of the deceased. The marriage between A-1 and the deceased took place on 29-10-1991 before the registrar of Marriages, Vizianagaram under the Hindu Marriage Act. After the marriage, A-1 and the deceased lived happily for some time. When the deceased came to know that her husband cheated her about his employment, she used to live on tuitions. A-1 used to ill-treat the deceased for money and as she could not bear the ill-treatment, she got pledged a gold chain and gave Rs. 2,500 -. A-1 and the deceased never lived separately. Though the deceased filed a petition for divorce, A-1 and the deceased used to live at Phoolbagh Colony, vizianagaram and leading life on tuitions. A-2 and A-3 used to live separately from A-1 at Vizianagaram. On one occasion, a-1 poured hot tea on the deceased resulting in burn injures. ( 4 ) WHILE so, on 14-4-2000 at about 1. 30 p. m. , while the deceased was cooking food after sending away the students, who came for tuitions and when she was alone, A-1 poured kerosene on her body and threw her on the burning stove, as a result of which, the deceased received severe burns injuries. The deceased raised hue and cries. 30 p. m. , while the deceased was cooking food after sending away the students, who came for tuitions and when she was alone, A-1 poured kerosene on her body and threw her on the burning stove, as a result of which, the deceased received severe burns injuries. The deceased raised hue and cries. On hearing the cries, one kondru Srinivasarao (P. W. 7) immediately went to the scene of offence and found a-1 in the company of the deceased. A-1 requested him not to reveal the incident to anybody. Then P. W. 7 and A1 put off the fire with water. A-1 sent away P. W. 7 from the scene of offence and got changed the burnt clothes of the deceased with a nighty and gave some injection in order to screen the offence. A-1 also threatened the deceased with dire consequences in case she revealed his name to anybody. A-1 took the deceased to his parents house at pradeep Nagar by making her to believe that he would give better treatment. A-1 sent word to A-2 and A-3. A-2 and A-3 also did not report the matter to the police. Since the condition of the deceased became serious due to the treatment of A-1, A-2 and A-3 got the deceased joined in the hospital on 15-4-2000. A-2 and A-3 also tried to screen the offence by giving treatment privately. On intimation of the incident, the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the statement of the deceased on 15-4-2000 and registered the same as a case in cr. No. 33 of 2000 under woman burns. The women Sub-Inspector observed the scene of offence in the presence of One Chukka lakshmi and Jakka Suryanarayana and seized the burnt material under the cover of an observation report on 15-4-2000. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class-PW17 recorded the statement of the deceased on 15-4-2000. However, on the basis of the statement of the victim recorded on 28-4-2000, the Sub-Inspector of Police-PW21 altered the F. I. R. into sections 307 and 498-A IPC. PW-17 recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 28-4-2000. The deceased stated to PW. 17 about the commission of the offence by A-1. On 3-6-2000, on receiving the intimation about the death of the victim, the Sub-Inspector of Police-PW. 22 altered the F. I. R. into Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. PW-17 recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 28-4-2000. The deceased stated to PW. 17 about the commission of the offence by A-1. On 3-6-2000, on receiving the intimation about the death of the victim, the Sub-Inspector of Police-PW. 22 altered the F. I. R. into Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. Since the offence in question, is grave in nature, the Inspector of Police-PW. 23 took up investigation and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements in Part-II C. D. P. W. 7 who has seen A1 along with the deceased at the time of the offence, is the direct witness to the offence. All the witnesses spoke as to A-1 and the deceased living together as wife and husband in Phoolbagh Colony, vizianagaram and also as to the ill-treatment of the deceased by A-1 for dowry. The neighbours also spoke about the harassment. During the course of investigation, on 9-5-2000, a-1 was arrested and sent to Court for remand. The Inspector of Police after conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased, sent the same for post-mortem examination. The inquestdars opined that the deceased died due to bums. Therefore, the investigation revealed that A-1 used to harass the deceased for dowry and caused burns to her, as she did not meet his demand. A-1 with the help of A-2 and A-3 tried to screen the offence. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed. ( 5 ) BEFORE the Court below, the charges levelled against A-1 and two others are as follows: Charge No 1:that on 14-4-2000 at about 1. 30 p. m. , while deceased Ratna Kumari was preparing food, all alone in the house in phoolbagh Colony, Vizianagaram, you A-1 poured kerosene on Ratna Kumari and threw her on burning stove due to which she received severe burn injuries and subsequently she died of burns while undergoing treatment on 3-6-2000. Thereby you A-1 committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court. Thereby you A-1 committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court. Charge No. 2:that you A-1 on the same day, at about the same time and at the same place, changed the burnt clothes of the deceased Ratna Kumari in order to screen the offence and threatened her with dire consequences if she reveals your name to anybody and shifted her to the house of your parents-A-2 and A-3 and since her condition became serious, you A-1 joined her in a private hospital on 15-4-2000 and escaped. Thereby you A-1 tried to screen the offence and committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Charge No 3:that you A-2 and A-3 parents of A-1 of you knowing fully well the offence committed by A-1 of you, did not give proper medical treatment and tried to screen the offence by giving treatment privately and escaped. Thereby you A-2 and A-3 committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court. Charge No. 4:that you A-1 after marriage with Ratna Kumari on 20-10-1991, used to ill-treat her for money, that unable to bear the ill-treatment she got pledged the black beed gold chain for Rs. 2,500/-and give the money to you (A-1), that you also poured hot tea on deceased resulting burn injuries and thereby you harassed and tortured her within the meaning of section 498-A I. P. C. Thereby you A-1 committed an offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court. ( 6 ) WHEN the charges were read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty. ( 7 ) IN order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P. Ws. l to 24 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-20 besides M. Os. 1 to 8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, A-1 and two others were subjected to examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , by putting incriminating evidence brought on record against them. The plea of accused is of total denial. P-1 to P-20 besides M. Os. 1 to 8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, A-1 and two others were subjected to examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , by putting incriminating evidence brought on record against them. The plea of accused is of total denial. ( 8 ) ON appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge having found A-1 not guilty of the charges under Sections 498-A, 302 and 302 read with Section 201 IPC and A-2 and A-3 not guilty of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 201 IPC, acquitted them. As against the same, the State has preferred the present appeal. ( 9 ) AS already stated, the case against a2 and A3 was dismissed at the time of admission by a Division Bench of this Court and as such, the case is being proceeded with against A1 alone. ( 10 ) HEARD the learned Public prosecutor appearing for the State and also sri G. Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for A-1. ( 11 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that the dying declarations are consistent and therefore, the trial Court is not justified in acquitting A-1 and two others. It is further contended that the contents of dying declarations are corroborated by the evidence P. W. 7 and others and that the finding of the Court below that the deceased was tutored cannot be sustained for the reason that the evidence on record coupled with the dying declarations amply proves the factum of pouring kerosene and litting fire to the deceased and her dying due to burns. The Court below has failed to appreciate the dying declarations as well as the evidence on record in a proper perspective and as such, findings recorded by the Court below, cannot be sustained. Hence, the judgment under appeal warrants interference of this Court. ( 12 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for A-1 vehemently contended that the dying declarations in question are not consistent and hence, much significance cannot be attached to them and therefore, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused. Hence, the judgment under appeal does not warrant any interference of this court. ( 12 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for A-1 vehemently contended that the dying declarations in question are not consistent and hence, much significance cannot be attached to them and therefore, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused. Hence, the judgment under appeal does not warrant any interference of this court. ( 13 ) IN the instant case, it has to be seen as to whether the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature or not? ( 14 ) INSOFAR as the nature of the death of the deceased is concerned, the evidence of P. W. 16-Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex. P-2 postmortem report, and inquest mediator viz. , p. W. 5 and Ex. P-5-inquest report, are relevant for consideration. ( 15 ) THE testimony of P. W. 3-Medical officer goes to show that the deceased sustained 44% burns and the cause of the death of the deceased was due to septicemia shock and ante-mortem burns. He further certified that the age of burns was about 48 hours before admission into the hospital. ( 16 ) THE evidence of one of the inquestdars i. e. , P. W. 15 coupled with Ex. P5 inquest report makes it clear that the deceased died due to burn injuries. ( 17 ) FROM the above evidence, it is clear that the deceased died due to burns sustained to her. ( 18 ) NOW, it has to be seen as to whether the findings of the Court below can be sustained or not and if not, whether it is A1 who is responsible for the commission of the offence. ( 19 ) IN this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the dying declaration Ex. P11 and the statements of the deceased recorded by P. W. 21 i. e. , Exs. P16 and P18 and the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 8 as well as the medical evidence and the evidence of other witnesses. ( 20 ) BEFORE going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that there is no dispute as to the relationship of Al and the deceased. ( 21 ) LET us now determine as to whether it is A1 who is responsible for the death of the deceased or not. ( 20 ) BEFORE going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that there is no dispute as to the relationship of Al and the deceased. ( 21 ) LET us now determine as to whether it is A1 who is responsible for the death of the deceased or not. ( 22 ) IN this regard, the evidence of p. Ws. 7, 8 and the owner of the house wherein the deceased was living and the dying declarations, play a vital role. ( 23 ) FIRSTLY, it has to be examined as to the sanctity that can be attached to Ex. P. 10 dying declaration recorded by P. W. 17, the learned Magistrate. ( 24 ) THE contents of Ex. P10 dying declaration of the deceased recorded on 15-4-2000 at 4. 40 p. m. , reveal as under: "on 14-4-2000 at about 8 hours while she was lining kerosene stove to prepare tea, huge winds were coming, as a result of which, her saree was burnt and flames came out and her body was burnt. There was divorce with her husband 10 years back. Her husband never came to her house after divorce. Though she raised cries none of the neighbours came as huge winds were flowing. As herself poured water on her available in the kitchen, the flames were put off. Nobody has done this. She was giving tuitions to the children at the house only. " ( 25 ) AGAIN, on 27-4-2000 at about 11. 30p. m. , the learned Magistrate has recorded Ex. P11 dying declaration of the deceased and the same reads inter alia as under: "the name of the house owner is Amba, mother of P. W. 13. A1 got divorce with her on 31-12-1992. While she was preparing food on a kerosene stove at about 1. 30 to 2 p. m. , on 14-4-2000, there was exchange of words between A1 and the deceased with regard to payment of electricity charges. Then A1 called P. W. 8, one of her students to see as to whether the electricity office was opened or not and then P. W. 8 went there and informed that the office was closed. Then, there was exchange of words between them. Then, he took up a kerosene tin and poured kerosene on her shoulders and threw her on the kerosene stove. Then, there was exchange of words between them. Then, he took up a kerosene tin and poured kerosene on her shoulders and threw her on the kerosene stove. She raised cries when her saree was burnt and flames came. A1 took the water from the bath room and poured on her. Then, P. W. 7, srinu also came there and poured water on her. A1 requested P. W. 7 not to reveal anybody and sent him. A1 gave a nighty to her and kept her in the house brought tablets and injections. A1 gave injections to her right hand. He gave her tablets frequently. He gave six injections. On 14-4-2000 night in between 12. 30 to 1. 00 a. m. , a1 brought her in a rickshaw to her father-in-laws house at Pradeepnagar. At that time, nobody was present there. A1 told that he would bring his parents and he would give treatment to her and requested her not to reveal anybody. On her request, A1 did not either bring her to his mother or send word to her. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law came from rajahmundry on 15-4-2000 and they requested her not to reveal to anybody and it will be cured. After admitting her in a private hospital for treatment, A1 and his parents joined her in the Government hospital. Before admitting her in the hospital, A1 and his mother have told that she was burnt due to stove accident and therefore, she told the same on the earlier occasion. " ( 26 ) P. W. 1, the mother of the deceased stated that one and half year back on 15th April, the police came to her house and informed about the deceased as to her admission in the Government Hospital with burn injuries. Then, she immediately went to the hospital and found the deceased on the bed. She also found A-1 and his parents near the wall of the room. When she enquired the deceased, she stated that accidentally, she suffered burns and again went into sleep. 10 days later, the deceased told that A1 poured kerosene on her and pushed her on a burning stove and then she sustained burn injuries and A1 threatened her not to reveal the incident to anybody. Except making bald suggestions, nothing has been elicited from her cross-examination. ( 27 ) FROM the contents of Ex. 10 days later, the deceased told that A1 poured kerosene on her and pushed her on a burning stove and then she sustained burn injuries and A1 threatened her not to reveal the incident to anybody. Except making bald suggestions, nothing has been elicited from her cross-examination. ( 27 ) FROM the contents of Ex. P11, dying declaration and the evidence on record, irrespective of the fact as to whether there was divorce between A1 and the deceased, it has to be seen as to whether they were living under one roof or whether a1 was present at the relevant point of time. ( 28 ) IN this regard, the evidence of p. W. 13, who is the son of the owner of the house in question, is relevant for consideration, p. W. 13 stated that he had a house in poolbagh Colony. His mothers name is saluri Ratnakumari known as Amba. His mother is no more. The deceased was a tenant in their house at Poolbagh since about 5 or 6 years before the incident. The rent was Rs. 200. /- p. m. The deceased used to come and pay the rent and some times, A1 used to come and pay rent. ( 29 ) P. W. 7, one of the tuition students of the deceased stated that he knew the deceased and A1 and both of them were giving tuitions. He joined for tuition for the entrance examination of Air force. His house is adjacent to the house of the deceased and A1 separated by a wall. On the date of incident, while he was playing with a ball infront of their house, he heard shouts from the house of the deceased and then he went into their house. He found the deceased in the bath room and A1 was pouring water on her. A1 requested him to bring water from the well. Then, he took out two buckets of water from the well and gave it to A1. After pouring water on the deceased, A1 asked him to go away stating that it should not be revealed to anybody. He found burns on both shoulders of the deceased. Except making bald suggestions, nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination. ( 30 ) P. W. 8, who was also one of the tuition students stated that he was taking tuition from the deceased from February, 2000. He found burns on both shoulders of the deceased. Except making bald suggestions, nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination. ( 30 ) P. W. 8, who was also one of the tuition students stated that he was taking tuition from the deceased from February, 2000. The deceased was no more. Prior to 13th April, since few days, the deceased was asking him to go to the Electricity office for payment of the bill. He went to the Electricity Office and returned and told her that the office was closed. After three days, he came to know that the deceased suffered burns. He identified A1 as the husband of the deceased. P. W. 9, who is the mother of P. W. 8 stated that p. W. 8 used to take tuition from the deceased. The deceased and A1 were residing and as they were staying together, she thought that they were wife and husband. About one year back when the police came to poolbagh Colony, she came to know that the deceased suffered burn injuries. She went to the hospital and found the deceased with burn injuries. In April, 2000, her son told that A1 informed him that there was holiday for three days as they were going to Thirupathi. ( 31 ) THUS, the evidence of P. W. 13, owner of the house coupled with P. Ws. 7 and 8 makes it clear that the deceased and A1 were staying under one roof and a1 was present at the relevant point of incident. ( 32 ) THE contents of Ex. Pll dying declaration that A1 and his mother requested the deceased not to reveal the incident to anybody, are strengthened by the evidence of P. W. 7 who was one of the tuition students that A1 told him that he should not reveal the incident to anybody. The presence of a1 and others on 15-4-2000 in the government Hospital was fortified by the evidence of P. W. 1 who is the mother of the deceased. In this background of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that at the time of giving Ex. P10 dying declaration, she was influenced by A1 and others, so that she could not have elicited the true facts at that point of time. Therefore, but for this Ex. In this background of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that at the time of giving Ex. P10 dying declaration, she was influenced by A1 and others, so that she could not have elicited the true facts at that point of time. Therefore, but for this Ex. P10 dying declaration, which was given under the influence of A1 and others, the subsequent dying declaration, Ex. P11 cannot be brushed aside. ( 33 ) IN this regard, it is pertinent to note that the deceased was not an illiterate or a rustic lady. She was an highly qualified woman possessing M. Com. , ll. B. , qualification. Apart from that, it cannot be expected that she would tell a lie even at the time of edge of her death. As already stated, Ex. P. 10 dying declaration which was given at the time of sufferings with the severe burns, was given only under the influence of A1 and others and she might have been compelled under the circumstances not to reveal the true facts. She was alive from 15-4-2000 to 3-6-2000. During this period, according to the medical evidence, blood transfusion was made for six times and during the course of this treatment, she may be relieved from pains and sufferings to some extent and at this point of time, Ex. P11 dying declaration was recorded by the learned Magistrate. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we feel that there is nothing unnatural for the deceased to give Ex. P11 dying declaration. ( 34 ) IN this case, the alleged incident took place on 14-4-2000 at about 1. 30 p. m. The evidence of medical officer reveals that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 15-4-2000 at about 1. 45 p. m. , and the age of the bum injuries was 48 hours and the deceased suffered 44% of the bum injuries and her condition was bad. If that being the case, it is not known as to what has prevented A1, being the husband of the deceased, in not bringing the deceased immediately after the incident and in not giving the report to the police for the reasons best known to him. If that being the case, it is not known as to what has prevented A1, being the husband of the deceased, in not bringing the deceased immediately after the incident and in not giving the report to the police for the reasons best known to him. In this background of the matter, the only inference that can be drawn against the attitude of a1, is that he wants to suppress the truth so as to convince that as if she died accidentally. ( 35 ) IN this view of the matter, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Ex. P. 11 dying declaration is an out come of tutoring by her relations, is wholly untenable. ( 36 ) HOWEVER, in view of more than one dying declaration and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in a decision reported in Mohanlal gangaram Gehani v. State of maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 839 , wherein it has been laid down that where there are more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred and of course if the plurality of dying declaration could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted. Now it has to be examined as to whether Ex. P11 stands to the test in its entirety. ( 37 ) EX. P11 is fully supported on its material aspects as to the presence of P. W. 7, srinivasarao as well as his help to A1 in pouring water on the deceased at the time of incident and also as to the role played by P. W. 8 in informing that the electricial office was closed, by the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 8 who are tuition students at the relevant point of time. No enemity or any ill feelings have been elicited from their cross-examination so as to infer that they are speaking falsehood against A1. ( 38 ) FOR the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and the evidence of p. Ws. 1, 7, 8 and 13 coupled with the medical evidence and P. W. 17, we have no hesitation to hold that Ex. P11 dying declaration is free from any doubt and as such, the same is trustworthy and reliable in its entirety. ( 39 ) THE Court below has simply thrown out Ex. 1, 7, 8 and 13 coupled with the medical evidence and P. W. 17, we have no hesitation to hold that Ex. P11 dying declaration is free from any doubt and as such, the same is trustworthy and reliable in its entirety. ( 39 ) THE Court below has simply thrown out Ex. P11 on the ground that it is only an after thought being influenced by P. Ws. 1 to 3, 5 and 6. But, this approach is only a mechanical one without considering the circumstances and also the evidence of p. Ws. 7 and 8 who are crucial witnesses in this case. Hence, the findings of the Court below insofar as this accused is concerned, are not sustainable and consequently, the acquittal recorded by the Court below, is liable to be set aside. ( 40 ) IN the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that it is A1 who is responsible for the death of the deceased. A1 is found guilty for the offence under section 302 IPC. However, A1 is found not guilty for the remaining charges levelled against him and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same. ( 41 ) IN the result, the criminal appeal filed by the State is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 19-10-2001 in S. C. No. 40 of 2001. ( 42 ) CONSEQUENTLY, A1 is found guilty for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr. P. C. for the said offence and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. However, A1 is acquitted for the remaining charges levelled against him.