Judgement K. N. BASHA, J. :- The sole accused Raja faced the trial before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukottai in S. C. No. 76 of 2002 and suffered conviction under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. The accused in this case faced the trial under the following back-drop : i) The accused is the husband of the deceased Kanagambal. Out of their wedlock, two children-P.Ws. 1 and 2, a son and a daughter born. P. W. 3 was working as a Loadman. Right from the date of marriage, the accused was living in his in-laws place with his family. The accused was doing a Lottery Tickets business. He used to quarrel with his wife (deceased) after consuming alcohol. He also treated the deceased and his children cruelly by beating them. P. W. 3-father-in-law of the accused also condemned him and warned him several times. ii) On the fateful day of occurrence i.e. on 11-2-2002, at 10-30 p.m., the deceased was sleeping along with her two children-P. Ws. 1 and 2. At that time, the accused came to the house and the deceased got up and made the food ready for serving to the accused. The accused simply scolded her and refused to take the food. Immediately, he took the kerosene can-M. O. 1 and poured the kerosene on her and set fire on the deceased by lighting the match-box. On hearing the hue and cry, P. W. 3, father of the deceased and his wife and the two children-P. Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the scene and found the deceased in the flame of burning fire. The deceased also attempted to catch the accused, but the accused escaped from her clutches and ran away from the scene. P. W. 3 and his wife put off the fire. When P. W.3 questioned the deceased as to what had happened, the deceased informed him that the accused poured kerosene and set fire on her. Thereafter P. W. 3 took the injured to the Government Hospital, Alangudi. iii) Doctor-P. W. 6 attached to Government Hospital, Alangudi, examined the injured (deceased) on 11.05 p.m. on 11-2-2002. The deceased was brought by her father-P. W. 3. Thereafter P. W. 3 took the injured to the Government Hospital, Alangudi. iii) Doctor-P. W. 6 attached to Government Hospital, Alangudi, examined the injured (deceased) on 11.05 p.m. on 11-2-2002. The deceased was brought by her father-P. W. 3. The Doctor-P. W. 6 found the following injuries : "Area involved - Neck, chest, back and both thigh up to upper 2/3 of the left leg, both upper (N. C.) Rigth foot > 85% burns." Ex. P5 is the Accident Register. It is mentioned in Ex. P. 5-Accident Register that "Alleged said to have poured kerosene and burned herself 10.30 p.m. 11-2-2002 at her house. Patient conscious". In Ex. P5, it is not made clear as to who had given the information regarding the reason for the occurrence. Doctor P. W. 6 also further stated in his chief examination that when he examined the injured (deceased) on the next day, the deceased told him that the burned injuries were caused by her husband by pouring kerosene and set fire on her. It is stated by the Doctor-P. W. 6 that the deceased was conscious and was in a fit state of mind in giving dying declaration and as such, he has sent intimation to the Magistrate, Alangudi for recording the dying declaration. iv) P. W. 5-Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, received the message from the hospital on 12-2-2002 at 7.35 a.m. under Ex. P 3 for recording the dying declaration. Thereafter he went to the Government Hospital, Alangudi at 7.50 a.m. and the injured (deceased) was identified by the Doctor-P. W. 7. He recorded the dying declaration-Ex. P. 4. The Doctor-P. W. 7 also gave a certificate to the effect that the deceased was conscious and she was in a fit state of mind to give the dying declaration which was marked as Ex. P7 and the same was attached to Ex. P. 4. It was stated by the deceased in Ex. P4-dying declaration that at 10.30 p.m., the accused came to the house and when she was about to serve food to the accused, he scolded her and poured kerosene and also set fire on her by lighting the match-box. When she questioned the accused and caught hold of the accused's hands, the accused pushed her hands and thereafter ran away from the scene. When she questioned the accused and caught hold of the accused's hands, the accused pushed her hands and thereafter ran away from the scene. It was also stated that on hearing the hue and cry, P. W. 3-father of the deceased, her mother and two children-P. Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the scene and took her to the hospital. It was also specifically stated by her that only her husband was responsible for the burned injuries. v) P. W. 9, Sub-Inspector of Police, received the message from the Government Hospital, Alangudi at 8.45 a.m. on 12-2-2002. He went to the hospital at 9.00 a.m. and recorded the statement from the deceased in the presence of Doctor-P. W. 7 under Ex. P8. The said statement was also certified by the Doctor-P. W. 7 that the deceased was conscious throughout the time of recording the statement. Even in the dying declaration said to have been recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police-P. W. 9, the deceased reiterated that only her husband was responsible for the burned injuries. vi) After recording the statement, P. W. 9-Sub Inspector of Police returned to the Alangudi Police Station and registered the case in Crime No. 28 of 2002 under Section 307, I. P. C. Ex. P9 is the Express F. I. R. He sent the Express F. I. R. to the higher Police Officials and to the Magistrate Court. vii) P. W. 10-Inspector of Police received the F. I. R. on 12-2-2002 at 9.30 a.m. and took up investigation in this case. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar-Ex. P1 and also prepared the rough sketch Ex. P10 in the presence of P. W. 4 and another. He recovered M. O. 1-green colour plastic can, M. O. 2-Match Box, M. O. 3-burnt polyester saree bit, M. O. 4-orange colour blouse bit, in the presence of witnesses under Ex. P2. He also sent the material objects to the Magistrate Court. He had examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and others and recorded their statements. viii) on 17-2-2002, P. W. 10 received the message from the Government Hospital, Alangudi regarding the death of the deceased at 6.00 p.m. and altered the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. to 302, I. P. C. Ex. He had examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and others and recorded their statements. viii) on 17-2-2002, P. W. 10 received the message from the Government Hospital, Alangudi regarding the death of the deceased at 6.00 p.m. and altered the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. to 302, I. P. C. Ex. P11 is the altered F. I. R. He also held inquest on the body of the deceased on 18-2-2002 from 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. Ex. P. 12 is the Inquest Report. He had sent the body of the deceased for postmortem. ix) Doctor-P. W. 7 attached to Government Hospital, Alangudi, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 18-2-2002. He found the following injuries on the deceased. "The extensive burnt areas with pus seen on the soft tissue, ruptured and shrunken vesicles (the patient was treated as inpatient). The head, face and form are symmetrical. The eye lids were closed. There was frothy discharge from the nostrils. The mouth and lips were closed. The tongue was inside the mouth. The teeth were complete. The thorax well formed. The mammary glands, developed. Mild distention of the abdomen was present. The hands were empty. Lines of redness present over the subcutaneous tissues. The burnt areas were present in the lower aspect of both sides of face, both upper limbs, the front and back of chest and abdomen the front of both lower limbs, the back of both legs and the right foot." Ex. P6 is the Postmortem certificate and Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Extensive burns and sepass (sic) about 12 to 24 hours before the autopsy. x) P. W. 11-Inspector of Police took up further investigation from P. W. 10 on 13-2-2002. He also went to the scene of occurrence and also once again examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and others and they have stated the same statements as they have given to P. W. 10-Inspector of Police and therefore, he has not recorded their statements separately. P. W. 10 arrested the accused on 14-2-2002 at 5.00 p.m. at Alangudi Government Bus Stand and has remanded the accused to Judicial custody. On 25-2-2002, he has examined the Doctor-P. W. 7 and recorded his statement. He has also examined the other witnesses including P. W. 5-Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi. He has received postmortem certificate under Ex. P. W. 10 arrested the accused on 14-2-2002 at 5.00 p.m. at Alangudi Government Bus Stand and has remanded the accused to Judicial custody. On 25-2-2002, he has examined the Doctor-P. W. 7 and recorded his statement. He has also examined the other witnesses including P. W. 5-Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi. He has received postmortem certificate under Ex. P6 and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused under Section 302, I. P. C. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined P. Ws. 1 to 11, filed Exs. P1 to P12 and marked M. Os. 1 to 4. 4. When the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr. P. C., in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused has come forward with the version of total denial and submitted that he heard that the deceased poured kerosene and set fire on herself and thereafter he went to the Government Hospital, Alangudi at 12.00 midnight. The accused has not chosen to examine any witness on his side. 5. (a) Mr. Muthu Pandian, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused by adducing clear and cogent evidence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution placed reliance on the eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2, who are the child witnesses. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the child witnesses-P. Ws. 1 and 2 who are the son and daughter of the deceased could not have been present at the time of occurrence as it was clearly mentioned in the dying declaration-Ex. P. 4 that only after hearing the hue and cry of the deceased, P. W. 3-father of the deceased, her mother and her children came there as they were sleeping in the different portion of the house. (b) It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are contradictions between the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Ex. P4 and the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer-P. W. 9 under Ex. P8. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in Ex. (b) It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are contradictions between the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Ex. P4 and the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer-P. W. 9 under Ex. P8. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in Ex. P8, there was a mention about the accused coming to the house after consuming alcohol and the same was not stated before the Judicial Magistrate while recording the dying declaration under Ex. P4. (c) The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in the Accident Register-Ex. P5, it was stated that the victim alleged to have poured kerosene and burned herself and therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a case of suicide. (d) The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that except the abovesaid pieces of evidence, there is no other materials available on record to connect the accused with the crime. 6. (i) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing acceptable evidence. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the son and daughter of the accused and the deceased and their evidence are clear and cogent. (ii) It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there is no material contradictions between the dying declaration Ex. P4 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and the dying declaration recorded by the sub-Inspector of Police-P. W. 9. (iii) It is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor regarding the actual occurrence, the deceased categorically stated in both the dying declarations that only her husband (accused) was responsible for causing the burned injuries on her. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that even in Ex. P5 Accident Register, there is a mere mentioning that she poured the kerosene and set fire on herself and there is absolutely no material available on record to show that the said statement was given by the deceased. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that even in Ex. P5 Accident Register, there is a mere mentioning that she poured the kerosene and set fire on herself and there is absolutely no material available on record to show that the said statement was given by the deceased. (iv) It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that Doctor-P. W. 6 has given a categorical statement in his evidence that even on the next day, when he visited the ward for examination of the injured/deceased, the deceased informed him that the burned injuries were only caused by her husband, the accused in this case. It is also pointed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the injured/deceased was conscious throughout the statements recorded under Ex. P4 as well as under Ex. P8. (v) It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, even Doctor-P. W. 7 has made an endorsement in the dying declaration Ex. P4 regarding the consciousness of the deceased throughout the recording of the dying declaration Ex. P4. It is also pointed out that even in Ex. P8, there is a certificate of the Doctor to the effect that the deceased was conscious throughout the recording of the dying declaration. (vi) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the version of the deceased as well as the eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 also corroborated by the medical evidence as the Doctor P. W. 7 who has conducted postmortem categorically stated that the deceased died due to the burned injuries only. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing sufficient materials before the Court. 7. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by both sides. 8. This is an unfortunate case wherein the accused said to have caused the death of his own wife by pouring kerosene and set fire on her. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the son and daughter of the accused and the deceased, who have been examined to state about the actual occurrence. P. W. 3-father of the deceased has come to the scene on hearing the hue and cry of the deceased. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the son and daughter of the accused and the deceased, who have been examined to state about the actual occurrence. P. W. 3-father of the deceased has come to the scene on hearing the hue and cry of the deceased. It is also further evident from the evidence of P. W. 3 that soon after the arrival, he has questioned his daughter (deceased) regarding the reason for the burned injuries and the deceased informed him that only her husband (accused) poured kerosene and set fire on her. 9. Apart from these pieces of evidence, P. Ws. 1 to 3, the prosecution also heavily placed reliance on the dying declaration Ex. P4 recorded by P. W. 5-Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi. Ex. P4-dying declaration was also endorsed and attested by the Doctor-P. W. 7 under Ex. P7 to the effect that the deceased was conscious throughout the time of recording the dying declaration by the Judicial Magistrate. Apart from the dying declaration, there is yet another dying declaration recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police-P. W. 9 under Ex. P8 and the same was also endorsed by the Doctor to the effect that the deceased was conscious throughout the recording of the dying declaration Ex. P8. 10. A perusal of the evidence of the eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 clearly shows that their evidence are quite natural though there are some statements that they might not have been present at the actual time of occurrence, the way in which they have given the evidence before the Court would show that they are aware about the happenings. Only in the dying declaration-Ex. P4 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate-P. W. 5 that after hearing the hue and cry of the deceased, P. W. 3-father of the deceased, her mother and the children came running after the occurrence at the scene and on that ground itself we cannot simply brush aside the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. It is quite possible that the children P. Ws. 1 and 2 might have got up after hearing the shouting and thereafter witnessed some portion of the occurrence namely the accused quarrelling and pouring the kerosene on their mother (deceased). 11. Even if we exclude the eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2, we are having the strong piece of evidence namely Ex. 1 and 2 might have got up after hearing the shouting and thereafter witnessed some portion of the occurrence namely the accused quarrelling and pouring the kerosene on their mother (deceased). 11. Even if we exclude the eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2, we are having the strong piece of evidence namely Ex. P4-dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate-P. W. 5 as well as the dying declaration recorded by P. W. 9, Sub-Inspector of Police under Ex. P8. 12. Apart from these strong pieces of evidence, there is yet another earlier statement given by the deceased to her father P. W. 3. P. W. 3 categorically stated in his evidence that on hearing the hue and cry, he rushed to the scene and when he questioned the deceased, the deceased said that only her husband (accused) poured kerosene and set fire on her. The oral dying declaration said to have been given to the father of the deceased-P. W. 3 is remained to be unchallenged by the defence. The defence in their cross examination has not shattered this particular portion of the evidence of P. W. 3. 13. The reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the appellant namely Ex. P5 is also not helpful to the prosecution. We have perused the Accident Register Ex. P5 wherein it was mentioned that the victim alleged to have poured kerosene and burned herself. In the evidence of Doctor P. W. 6, it was stated that even on the next day, when he visited the Ward and examined the injured, the deceased categorically stated to him that only her husband was responsible for the burned injuries. The evidence of Doctor P. W. 6 also was not clear to the effect that who has given the information to him regarding the cause of burned injuries. But, we are having other overwhelming records to the effect that the deceased suffered burned injuries only at the hands of the accused by pouring kerosene and setting fire on her. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chacko v. State of Kerala reported in VI (2002) SLT 661 : (2003 Cri LJ 441). 14. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chacko v. State of Kerala reported in VI (2002) SLT 661 : (2003 Cri LJ 441). In that case, the Supreme Court held that no value could be attached to the dying declaration, when the same contained minute particulars and in the absence of any certificate given by competent Doctor as to the mental and physical condition of the deceased to make the dying declaration. Therefore, that decision is not helpful to the defence in this case, as there was a Judicial dying declaration recorded under Ex. P4 and the same was certified by the Doctor P. W. 7 under Ex. P7 that the deceased was conscious throughout recording of the dying declaration and the dying declaration also not contained any minute details. 15. In Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A. P. reported in 1999 (4) Crimes 90 : (1999 Cri LJ 4287) (SC), the Apex Court has held that it is not safe to place reliance on the dying declaration as there are twofold, one recorded by the Magistrate and the other recorded by the Police and there is material contradictions as to who has poured the kerosene. In that case, in the first dying declaration, it was stated by the deceased that her husband poured the kerosene and in another dying declaration it was stated by the deceased that her husband and her mother-in-law poured the kerosene and regarding the manner of mention also there were variations between the two dying declarations and as such the Apex Court held that it was not safe to place reliance on the said dying declarations. It was also pointed out by the Apex Court that those dying declarations were not certified by any Doctor regarding the fit statement of mind of the deceased. Therefore, those decisions are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 16. Therefore, as already stated, we cannot brush aside the strong pieces of evidence against the accused namely Ex. P4-dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate-P. W. 5 under Ex. P8, the dying declaration recorded by P. W. 9-Sub Inspector Police and both of them were certified by the competent Doctor to the effect that the deceased was throughout conscious during the recording of the dying declarations. P4-dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate-P. W. 5 under Ex. P8, the dying declaration recorded by P. W. 9-Sub Inspector Police and both of them were certified by the competent Doctor to the effect that the deceased was throughout conscious during the recording of the dying declarations. Apart from the abovesaid dying declarations, there is yet another oral dying declaration given by the deceased to her father-P. W. 3 and as already stated that evidence of P. W. 3 also remained unchallenged. 17. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interfere in the Judgment and conviction passed by the learned trial Judge. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.