JUDGMENT : DR. G. YETHIRAJULU, J.:— This is an appeal preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No. 346 of 2002 on the file of II-Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The accused was charged for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC for allegedly pouring kerosene and setting fire to his wife leading her to death on 04-04-2002 while undergoing treatment. The accused denied the charge and claimed for trial. 2. The case of the prosecution lead to the conviction of the appellant is briefly as follows: The deceased is the second wife of the accused. About months prior to the date of occurrence, the accused married the deceased without informing about his first marriage. After the marriage, the deceased-Eramma joined the accused and lived with accused in a hut. The accused addicted to alcohol and after consuming liquor he used to beat the deceased now and then by suspecting her character, whenever she asked him to allow to do coolie work of weaving to meet their family expenditure. On 13-03-2002 at about 16 hours when the deceased requested the accused to allow her to go for coolie work, accused abused her in filthy language and by suspecting her character poured kerosene on her and set fire with an intention to kill the deceased. The deceased was engulfed with flames and due to that she sustained burn injuries all over the body and raised cries. On hearing the cries, neighbours came to the hut and put off the fire. On seeing the neighbours the accused ran away from the scene of offence. Later the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Yemmiganur and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to injuries on 04-04-2002. While undergoing treatment a dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, and statement was also recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Yemmiganur Town Police Station. After the death of the deceased inquest was held over the dead body and autopsy was also conducted by the Medical Officer, who opined that death of the deceased was due to septicamia with neurogenic shock due to burns all over the body. After conclusion of the investigation police laid the charge sheet. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined P.Ws. 1 to 20 and marked Exs. P1 to P20 and M. Os. 1 to 6. After conclusion of the investigation police laid the charge sheet. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined P.Ws. 1 to 20 and marked Exs. P1 to P20 and M. Os. 1 to 6. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on defence side. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence and dying declaration came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. As the accused was also convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. He further directed that both the 25 sentences shall run concurrently. 4. The accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27-06-2003 preferred this appeal challenging the validity and legality of the sentence imposed by the lower Court. 5. The prosecution case is that the accused used to beat the deceased when she attended the coolie work against his will. He scolded her, beat her and poured kerosene and set fire due to which deceased died. The case of the defence is that of total denial of the offence. 6. In the above circumstances, the point for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court are liable to be set aside or modified.” 7. P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased. He deposed that his daughter died about one year back due to burns. He turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.Ws. 2 to 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution relied on three statements of the deceased. Firstly, the entry in the accidents register regarding the cause of death. Secondly, Ex. P24—statement recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Yemmiganur Town Police Station and thirdly, Ex. P8—dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the prosecution witnesses the deceased was not in a fit state of mind. Secondly, Ex. P24—statement recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Yemmiganur Town Police Station and thirdly, Ex. P8—dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the prosecution witnesses the deceased was not in a fit state of mind. Therefore, it is not safe to rely on her statements. 9. It is true that there is no other evidence in support of the prosecution, but the legal position is very clear that the dying declaration of the deceased can be acted upon and conviction can be given to the accused, if the version was believed to be true and acceptable. Therefore, we have to examine the statements given by the deceased to trust the truthfulness of the statement given by her. In Ex. P17 dated 13-03-2002 recorded at 5 P.M. it was mentioned that the deceased informed that burns were 5 caused by her husband at 4 P.M. on 13-03-2002 at her husband's house, patient suffered 90% burns. Ex. P24 is the earliest statement recorded by P.W. 20—Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. In the said statement the deceased gave a detailed information regarding her marriage etc. and further stated “today on 13-03-2002 afternoon at about 3 P.M. her husband came to the house and had meals. At that time she informed that she went to coolie work for that he scolded as ‘lanja’ and further saying that she did not heed his words and went to coolie work. By so saying he abused and beat her; took the kerosene tin and poured on her and lit fire with a match stick; due to that fire engulfed on her polyster saree and her body was burnt: she loudly raised cries and on hearing cries the neighbours came and on seeing them accused ran away from the place. The neighbours put off the fire by pouring water”. 10. The version in Ex. P24 is very specific that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her. Ex. P8 is another statement given by the deceased to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur. When the Magistrate questioned as to how she received fire she replied as follows: “Due to pouring of kerosene by my husband for attending the handloom work. On hearing my cries people came and poured water.” 11. Ex. P8 is another statement given by the deceased to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur. When the Magistrate questioned as to how she received fire she replied as follows: “Due to pouring of kerosene by my husband for attending the handloom work. On hearing my cries people came and poured water.” 11. She further stated as follows: “Since the marriage my mother-in-law and father-in law beat me due to meager dowry.” 12. This statement was recorded in the presence of the doctor and the doctor made an endorsement on the dying declaration that the patient was conscious and coherent at the time of recording the statement. This statement was recorded by the Magistrate on 14-03-2002 i.e. on the next date of the incident. On a perusal of the statement it is clear that the deceased pointed out that the accused was responsible for the offence by pouring kerosene and setting fire to her. She was also specific that except the accused nobody was there in the house. The version given in the above statements is consistent and there are no variations to create any kind of doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the truthfulness of the version given by the deceased. Sofaras the mental condition is concerned, the doctor is very specific that she was conscious and coherent. The learned Magistrate after putting the preliminary questions satisfied that she was in fit state of mind to give the statement. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not in a sound state of mind is not acceptable, as it is only a contention without any supporting material from the evidence placed before the Court. 13. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not in a sound state of mind is not acceptable, as it is only a contention without any supporting material from the evidence placed before the Court. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment of this Court in Earamalla Srinu v. State of A.P. (1), 2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 135 (D.B.) (A.P) wherein this Court held that if there is a doubt regarding the identity of the deceased: whether the Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of the person who is alleged to have died of burns in fact and whether the statement recorded by Sub-Inspector of police was taken of the same person land whether the dead body of the same person was sent for post-mortem examination and whether the inquest was held of the same person's body, it is not safe to rely on the dying declaration said to be recorded by the Magistrate. Therefore, dying declaration said to have been recorded at various times are doubtful and the conviction and sentence against the accused is set aside. 14. But the facts of the case covered by the above decision are different from the present case. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above case is not applicable to the present case. 15. It is needless to mention in Munnu Raja v. State of M.P. (2), (1976) 3 SCC 104 the Supreme Court held as follows: “There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration.” 16. In State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (3), (1985) 1 SCC 552 the Supreme Court held as follows: “If the court is satisfied that the dying, declaration is true and voluntary, it can base conviction on it, without corroboration.” 17. P.W. 15 the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased mentioned that the deceased received burns to an extent of 90% and he opined that deceased appeared to have died of septicaemia with narogenic shock, therefore, it has taken some time from the date of burns till the date of death. But from the statement of the deceased intention of the accused to kill the deceased is very clear. 18. But from the statement of the deceased intention of the accused to kill the deceased is very clear. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that if the Court comes to a conclusion that dying declaration of the deceased is acceptable, in view of time lag between the date of occurrence and the date of death nearly about 20 days, a lenient view may be taken for the offence and prayed for lesser punishment. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganga Dass v. State of Haryana (4), 1994 Supp (1) SCC 534 wherein the Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 302 can be tried under Section 304 part II when there is single head injury and deceased dying 18 days later due to septicaemia and other complications and the accused cannot be said to have intended to cause death or that particular injury. 19. In the present case, intention of the accused is very clear. He poured kerosene and resorted to set fire to the deceased. Imminent danger is anticipated and there is clear intention for the accused to do away with the deceased. Therefore, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the above case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower court and it is liable to be confirmed in all respects. 20. In the result, criminal appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower Court. 21. The advocate fees is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-.