Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Marriages are made in heaven says is an adage. A girl marries while having a dream of good husband to have his company throughout her life to pull on life like a chariot, when a bride leaves parental home for the matrimonial home leaving behind sweet memories there with a hope that she will see a new world full of love in her grooms house. She leaves behind not only her memories but also her surname, gotra and maidenhood. She excepts (expects ?) not only to be good wife but to be a good mother, daughter-in-law and even mother-in-law. This case relates to the sordid story of a woman who fell prey in the hands of his boozer husband and lost her life. 2. The appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda dated 11.3.1997 vide which Lilawanti, mother-in-law and Shakuntla alias Kaka, sister-in-law have been acquitted whereas Raj Kumar accused husband of the deceased Meena Rani was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 2 years. 3. Meena Rani was married at Raman Mandi, District Bathinda to Raj Kumar, accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as `the accused) 10/11 years back. From this wedlock, three children, namely, Neha, Pardeep and Ritu were born. The relations between Meena Rani and the accused were not cordial because the accused was a boozer. Meena Rani, while disclosing about her marriage, in her statement dated 30.12.1994, further told that on 29.11.1994, Ram Chander, brother of Meena Rani, a Canal Patwari (PW-4) had come to visit her and stayed there for a night. At that time, she disclosed to Ram Chander that Raj Kumar was addicted to drinking. She further told him that whenever she resisted, then Raj Kumar replied angrily and spoke of beating her. Meena Rani further confided that her sister-in-law Shakuntla and mother-in-law Leela Wanti had been instigating him to beat her and whenever she demanded house hold expenses to pull on the family then he used to direct her to get out of his house and come under a train and die. Ram Chander tried to pacify her and also told her that he would pursuade Raj Kumar also. Ram Chander tried to pacify her and also told her that he would pursuade Raj Kumar also. In the meantime, at about 7 p.m. when Ram Chander was resting in a room in his sisters house, Raj Kumar appellant came under the influence of liquor and started threatening her that he will see as to who saves her. Thereafter, he poured kerosene on her and ignited the match stick setting Meena Rani on fire and thereafter he ran away. Ram Chander put off the fire. Meena Rani raised hue and cry `burnt `burnt. Her children also started wailing and crying. She became unconscious. Ram Chander took her to the hospital. At 5.10 a.m. Meena Rani was admitted in the Civil Hospital and she was medically examined by PW-3, Dr. Amarjit Singh Sethi at 5.15 a.m. He sent intimation of her arrival to the Police Station Kotwali Bathinda whereupon ASI Chhota Ram along with other police officials reached Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda and took into possession chit Ex. PF written by Dr. Amarjit Singh Sethi to Police Station regarding admission of Meena Rani with burn injuries. Then at about 10.15 a.m., ASI Chhota Ram approached the duty Magistrate for recording statement and submitted application Ex. PD over which Shri R.S. Rai, Judicial Magistrate PW-2 made his endorsement Ex. PD/1 at 10.45 a.m. and proceeded to Civil Hospital, Bathinda. After obtaining the opinion of Dr. Gurdev Singh, PW-7 at 11.00 a.m. regarding the fitness of Meena Rani to make the statement, vide medical certificate Ex. PD/2, recorded dying declaration in the presence of Dr. Gurdev Singh Ex.PE in his own hand writing, which was completed at 11.20 a.m. Thereafter, Gurdev Singh again gave a certificate to the effect that the patient remained fit during the course of recording of the statement. The statement was read over and was admitted to be correct by Meena Rani. She had put thumb impression at the foot of the statement. Then Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of Meena Rani Ex. PK on the basis of which FIR Ex. PK/2 was registered in the Police Station. 4. Investigating Officer commenced the investigation, recorded the statement of Ram Chander and reached the spot. He collected half burnt clothes of Meena Rani, which he put into a parcel. After sealing the parcel with his seal `CR took the same into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PG. PK/2 was registered in the Police Station. 4. Investigating Officer commenced the investigation, recorded the statement of Ram Chander and reached the spot. He collected half burnt clothes of Meena Rani, which he put into a parcel. After sealing the parcel with his seal `CR took the same into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PG. He also took into possession a plastic can containing half litre of kerosene and a match box vide recovery memo. Ex. PH. He prepared the rough site plan Ex. PL and recorded the statements of the witnesses. 5. Initially, the case was registered under Section 307 IPC. However, on succumbing to injuries on 31.12.1994 at 4.55 a.m., he converted the offence to under Section 302 IPC from 307 IPC and proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda for getting conducted post mortem examination and moved an application Ex. PB in this regard. On completion of investigation, challan against all the three accused, namely, Raj Kumar, Leela Wanti and Shakuntla was presented under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. 6. PW-1, Dr. K.S. Brar has deposed that he and Dr. Sat Pal Garg conducted the post-mortem examination on the corpse of Meena Rani on 31.12.1994 at 12.30 p.m. and found the following injuries :- "Ointment applied all over the body. Superficial to deep burns present all over the body except axiallary area and both soles of feet and a small strip around the umbilicus. Singeing of scalp and pubic hair were present. Red line of demarcation between burnt and un-burnt area was present. Percentage of burns was about 95." 7. He has further deposed that according to them, cause of death in this case was due to shock, as a result of burns which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW-2 Shri R.S. Rai, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda who had recorded the deying declaration of Meena Rani on 30.12.1994 at 10.45 a.m. has categorically stated that Meena Rani was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement. 8. PW-3 Dr. PW-2 Shri R.S. Rai, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda who had recorded the deying declaration of Meena Rani on 30.12.1994 at 10.45 a.m. has categorically stated that Meena Rani was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement. 8. PW-3 Dr. Amarjit Singh Sethi, had deposed that on 30.12.1994 at 5.15 a.m., he had medico-legally examined Meena Rani and detected that there were superficial deep burns all over the body except the area of both soles of feet and a small strip near the umbilicus. Red line of demarcation was present between burnt and unburnt areas. Ballistics were also present at a place singeing of scalp hair. The burnt area was about 95%. He described the nature of injuries as dangerous to life. He has also deposed about the sending of the ruqa to the Police Station. 9. PW-4 Ram Chander is an eye-witness of the occurrence. He has narrated all the facts as mentioned by the prosecution during the trial. 10. PW-5 Om Parkash is the other brother of Meena Rani. He has also described about the conduct of Raj Kumar and his behaviour towards Meena Rani and he has supported the testimony of Ram Chander in this regard. He has further stated that on receipt of telephone of Ram Chander on 29.12.1994, they reached the hospital at Bathinda at about 5 a.m. and Meena Rani had died at 5 a.m. 11. PW-6 is the Investigating Officer, ASI Chhota Ram. He has described the steps he took during the investigation of the case. 12. PW-7 Dr. Gurdev Singh has proved the dying declaration and has stated that he certified the fitness of Meena Rani to make statement, which was recorded by Shri R.S. Rai in his presence. 13. PW-8 Balkar Singh who had partly investigated the case, has stated that he prepared the inquest, recorded the statement of the witnesses, and got the post-mortem examination conducted. He has also taken the possession of the chit sent to the Police Station by Medical officer indicating the death of Meena Rani. 14. On closure of the prosecution case, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded as under :- "I am innocent. On the day of occurrence, I was at Badopal as I had gone to inquire welfare of my ailing maternal uncle. 14. On closure of the prosecution case, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded as under :- "I am innocent. On the day of occurrence, I was at Badopal as I had gone to inquire welfare of my ailing maternal uncle. I received a telephonic call from Manohar Lal r/o Raman to the effect that Meena Rani had committed suicide. I cam to Sirsa from Badopal and took Ram Chander PW along with me to Raman, where we reached early in the morning on December 30, 1994. I took Meena Rani to Civil Hospital, Bathinda for treatment. Other relatives of Meena Rani were also informed who came to the hospital and were satisfied about the commission of suicide by Meena Rani. They persuaded my mother Leela Devi to transfer her house in the name of my children and on December 30, 1994 my mother Leela Devi transferred her house in the name of my children. Thereafter Ram Chander and his brothers and other relations including Advocate Shankar Lal tutored Meena Rani to make a statement against me, my mother, my sister Shakuntla Rani. My sister Shakuntla Rani was married at Sirsa since long and she was pregnant at the time of occurrence. Meena Rani was quarrel some by nature. She used to threaten me that she will commit suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil and involve the entire family in a false case. A notice was also sent through Shri Som Nath Bagla, Advocate on October 26, 1993 to Meena Rani with a copy to her brother Om Parkash Tiwari PW. My mother Leela Devi was separate from me for many years prior to the present occurrence and was residing at Bathinda with my younger brother Krishan Kumar." 15. Leela Wanti and Shakuntla also pleaded their false implication in the case. 16. The accused while entering into their defence examined Som Nath Bagla, Advocate, DW-1, Neha, daughter of Raj Kumar, DW-2, Manohar Lal, DW-3, Darshan Singh, DW-4, Chander Bhan, DW-5 and Gobind Ram, DW-6. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor, Leela Wanti and Shakuntla were given benefit of doubt and acquitted whereas Raj Kumar was convicted and sentenced accordingly. 18. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor, Leela Wanti and Shakuntla were given benefit of doubt and acquitted whereas Raj Kumar was convicted and sentenced accordingly. 18. The first contention with which the counsel for the accused has tried to convince us is that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which not only indicates the concoction of the prosecution version but also introduction of Ram Chander, PW-4 and tutoring of Meena Rani deceased in making dying declaration Ex. PE. Having given thoughtful consideration to this contention, we do not feel persuaded by it. The occurrence in the instant case took place at about 7 p.m. at Raman Mandi in the house of the accused where Meena Rani was residing. She was taken to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda at 5.10 a.m. ASI Chhota Ram reached Civil Hospital, Bathinda on 30.12.1994 at 10.15 a.m. Dying declaration of Meena Rani was recorded at 11.20 a.m. Thereafter, ASI Chhota Ram with the purpose to record the FIR also recorded the statement of Meena Rani Ex. PK over which he made his endorsement Ex. PK/1, which he completed at 12.15 p.m., on the basis of which, FIR was registered in the Police Station on the same day at 2.55 p.m. Ram Chander, brother of Meena Rani who had come to his sister on the evening of 29.12.1994 by stepping into the witness box as PW-4 has explained all the circumstances leading to this delay by stating that after Meena Rani was burnt by the accused, he rushed to the bazar to make a telephone call to his brother Om Parkash and Mahesh Kumar. After making telephone, he shifted her to Civil Hospital, Raman Mandi where no doctor was found present and he came across a person who with a promise to bring the doctor went away but did not return. He kept waiting there. In the meantime, his brother Om Parkash and Mahesh Kumar reached the Hospital, Raman from where they shifted Meena Rani to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda. Thus, in these circumstances, it was quite natural that in the night time occurrence some time must have been consumed in reaching the Hospital at Bathinda. He kept waiting there. In the meantime, his brother Om Parkash and Mahesh Kumar reached the Hospital, Raman from where they shifted Meena Rani to the Civil Hospital, Bathinda. Thus, in these circumstances, it was quite natural that in the night time occurrence some time must have been consumed in reaching the Hospital at Bathinda. Not only this, Ram Chander was the only person to take care of her sister Meena Rani at unfamiliar premises, where he was unknown to the neighbourers or other persons and it was quite natural that when the person had gone with a promise to bring the doctor, did not return then he had to wait for his brothers before shifting her to any other Hospital. In these circumstances, the contention that Ram Chander was introduced as a witness later on has no legs to stand. It will also be significant to mention that Meena Rani was admitted in Civil Hospital, Bathinda at 5.10 a.m. The ruqa was sent to the police by Dr. K.S. Brar at 5.15 a.m. then ASI Chhota Ram reached the Civil Hospital, Bathinda and approached the Duty Magistrate for recording dying declaration of Meena Rani. The dying declaration was recorded by Mr. R.S. Rai, Duty Magistrate on the same day at 11.20 a.m. Thereafter, ASI Chhota Ram also recorded the statement of Meena Rani and ultimately FIR Ex. PK was registered at 2.55 p.m. on the same day. It may further be pointed out that the accused himself stated that the parties deliberated over transferring house by Lila Wanti in the name of children of Meena Rani. Therefore, some time must have been consumed in it also. In the given circumstances of the case, the delay, if any, in recording the statement of Meena Rani and registration of the case stands well explained and cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. 19. No question of tutoring Meena Rani in this case before recording the dying declaration by Mr. R.S. Rai, JMIC, Bathinda arises as Dr. Amarjit Singh PW-3 has stated that at the time of admission, Meena Rani was under shock. The bed head ticket Ex. 19. No question of tutoring Meena Rani in this case before recording the dying declaration by Mr. R.S. Rai, JMIC, Bathinda arises as Dr. Amarjit Singh PW-3 has stated that at the time of admission, Meena Rani was under shock. The bed head ticket Ex. DB further reveals that at 6.50 a.m. on 30.12.1994, Meena Rani was administered Fortwin on S.O.S. basis to lift the pain and also as a sedative then at about 8.10 a.m. the condition of Meena Rani was serious and she was sedated. Thus, in such a situation, question of tutoring Meena Rani to make dying declaration at 11.20 a.m., according to choice of the complainant, is quite unnatural. 20. As regards the other contention that the presence of Ram Chander at the time of occurrence is doubtful as Meena Rani did not name Ram Chander as the person in whose presence the occurrence had taken place. 21. Having examined the contention, we do not find any merit in it. As is apparent from the dying declaration Ex. PE recorded by Mr. R.S. Rai, JMIC, Bathinda that it is in question answer form. The Magistrate did not ask any such question to Meena Rani as to who other were present at the time of occurrence. Had he asked such a question then Meena Rani must have mentioned about the presence of Ram Chander in the house. Furthermore, dying declaration is recorded only to know as to who caused and what was the cause of death. Furthermore, actually Ram Chander was present in the room when Raj Kumar poured the kerosene over Meena Rani and he came after a little while on hearing the screams, therefore, probably Meena Rani may not have mentioned about the presence of Ram Chander at the time when Kerosene was poured over her. But the dying declaration Ex. PE cannot be taken as evidence to exclude the presence of Ram Chander at the time of occurrence. It will not be out of place to mention here that in her statement, Ex. PK, Meena Rani has mentioned about the presence of Ram Chander at the time of occurrence. Since this was a detailed statement, therefore, Meena Rani did not omit to mention the presence of Ram Chander in the house. 22. It will not be out of place to mention here that in her statement, Ex. PK, Meena Rani has mentioned about the presence of Ram Chander at the time of occurrence. Since this was a detailed statement, therefore, Meena Rani did not omit to mention the presence of Ram Chander in the house. 22. While assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the accused has made a submission that Meena Rani, according to prosecution, made four dying declarations, two oral and two written, therefore in this factual situation, none should be believed. He has also raised a finger over the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate in the terms that it is purely a concocted one and Meena Rani was suffering from 95% burns, therefore, she was unable to make a dying declaration. Having scanned the records of the case and heard the contention, we do not find any merit in the same. No doubt, Meena Rani disclosed about the occurrence to her brother Ram Chander as well as her daughter Neha much less they were present at the time of occurrence, therefore, no importance can be given to the same, otherwise, Ram Chander in unequivocal words had stated that Meena Rani had named her husband as assailant to set her ablaze by pouring kerosene. As regards the dying declaration before Neha DW-2, it needs to be mentioned that though Neha aged about 10 years now coming from the custody of the mother and other family members of the accused, in order to make a bid to save her father, as a last hope of her support, has denied if his father set her mother ablaze. Even this child witness aged about 10 years having lived in the custody of the mother of the accused must be dreaming to see her father at his house, therefore, her statement being that of a child witness cannot be believed as child witnesses are always dangerous witnesses. 23. Now coming to the third dying declaration made before the Investigating Officer, the statement made by Meena Rani naming her husband as the assailant in that statement cannot be ignored especially when earlier, Meena Rani made a similar categoric statement before Mr. R.S. Rai, JMIC, Bathinda. 23. Now coming to the third dying declaration made before the Investigating Officer, the statement made by Meena Rani naming her husband as the assailant in that statement cannot be ignored especially when earlier, Meena Rani made a similar categoric statement before Mr. R.S. Rai, JMIC, Bathinda. The question requires to be examined, as raised by the counsel for the accused is that whether Meena Rani was in a fit state to make the statement before the Magistrate. In this regard, besides examining the medicines administered to Meena Rani which indicate that she was fit to make a statement, Dr. Gurdev Singh who treated Meena Rani has categorically recorded in his certificate Ex. PD-2 that Meena Rani was fit to make statement, thereafter, on the statement Ex. PE Dr. Gurdev Singh again certified that Meena Rani remained fit during the time, she made statement. No allegations of mala fide have been raised either against Dr. Gurdev Singh or JMIC who recorded the dying declaration. There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve Dr. Gurdev Singh on account of any medical or psychological circumstances which may have arisen after Meena Rani was admitted to Hospital. Dr. K.S. Brar, PW-1 was also cross-examined with regard to the fitness of Meena Rani to make the statement and no question was asked to him if she was unable to speak. 24. There is no material to show that dying declaration was a result of production of imagination, tutoring or prompting. On the contrary, the same appears to have been made by the deceased voluntarily. It is trustworthy and has credibility as it has been duly proved by Ram Chander PW-4, Dr. Gurdev Singh, PW and R.S. Rai, JMIC. 25. It was observed by a Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Lakshman v. State of Maharashtra, 2002(6) SCC 710 that where the medical certificate indicated that the patient was conscious, it would not be correct to say that there was no certification as to state of mind of the declarant. Moreover, state of mind was proved by testimony of doctor who was present when the dying declaration was recorded. 26. Moreover, state of mind was proved by testimony of doctor who was present when the dying declaration was recorded. 26. It was observed by the Apex Court in case Nanahau Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 912 that normally the Court in order to satisfy that deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration, look up to the medical opinion but where the eye witness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. 27. In the instant case, not only the eye witnesses, namely, Ram Chander and Gurdev Singh stated about the fitness of injured Meena Rani to make the statement but it is supported by the certification of Dr. Gurdev Singh. 28. It may further be mentioned that between two written dying declarations, it will be safer to base the dying declaration first in time as was observed by the Apex Court in case Mohan Lal Ganga Ram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 839. 29. Having examined the entire evidence on the record, the dying declaration itself and the testimony of the witnesses, it will not be inappropriate to hold that the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate is most genuine and acceptable document recorded by the JMIC in the presence of a responsible doctor who had no reason to create a false record. Even otherwise, the genuineness of statement Ex. PK though lateron turned to be dying declaration, which was initially recorded by the Investigator for the purpose of registration of the case also cannot be doubted. 30. It has been next contended by the counsel for the accused that since the relations between Raj Kumar and Meena Rani were strained and Raj Kumar even issued notice Ex. DD to Meena Rani through Shri Som Nath Bagla DW-1, therefore, there is sufficient motive to implicate him in the case and to convert the case of the suicide to that of homicide. 31. Having examined the testimony of Som Nath Bagla, as well as the notice Ex. DD, it does not prove the case of the accused rather it supports the case of the complainant. 31. Having examined the testimony of Som Nath Bagla, as well as the notice Ex. DD, it does not prove the case of the accused rather it supports the case of the complainant. The contents of the notice indicate that accused was annoyed with his wife for the reason that she has been insulting and misbehaving with him in the presence of friends and relatives. It also further indicates that the accused was not liking the deceased, therefore, he had the motive to finish her and get rid of her. Much stress has been laid on the testimony of Manohar Lal DW-3 who deposed that on the date of occurrence when he had come to the house of the deceased to deliver the milk then he saw that deceased had sprinkled kerosene on herself and on inquiry she replied that she was waiting for her husband to return and she would set herself on fire then at about 9-10 p.m., he heard that deceased had set herself ablaze and then he informed Raj Kumar accused at 11.45 p.m. He also tried to shift Meena Rani to Hospital but she refused till her husband reached the house. It has been proved on the record that telephone call was made at 11.45 p.m. According to Neha, Raj Kumar returned at 7 a.m. In any case, if he had received the call at 11.45 p.m., then he could reach at the most within two hours by a best mode of transport. It is also not explained as to why Manohar Lal kept silent for two hours after the occurrence. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Manohar Lal as to disbelieve the prosecution version. Thus, the trial Court rightly did not accept the defence plea set up by the accused. 32. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on the record, we are satisfied that dying declaration made by Meena Rani before the JMIC, Bathinda in the presence of Dr. Gurdev Singh was voluntarily made when she was in a fit state of mind, she involved the real culprit and did not involve any other family member. 32. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on the record, we are satisfied that dying declaration made by Meena Rani before the JMIC, Bathinda in the presence of Dr. Gurdev Singh was voluntarily made when she was in a fit state of mind, she involved the real culprit and did not involve any other family member. Thus, the dying declaration can be said to be true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make false statement, as such, the same being supported by the other evidence, is sufficient to impel us to hold that it was none else except the accused who committed the crime. 33. As regards the defence plea set up by the accused, the trial Court has, for good reasons, rightly observed that the accused has failed to establish his plea of alibi. No other point has been urged by the counsel for the accused. 34. Looked at from any angle, conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court are affirmed and we do not want to interfere with the same. The appeal being without any merit is dismissed accordingly. 35. As per records, the accused is on bail, therefore, necessary steps be taken to take him into custody for serving the remaining period of his sentence.