Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has challenged his conviction and sentence passed by Sessions judge, Sagar, in S. T. No. 189/1992, decided on 2-6-1994. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his wife Asha Bai and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, deceased Asha Bai (hereinafter to be referred as the deceased) was married to the appellant about seven years prior to the incident and had two children from the appellant. Appellant did not do any work and used to quarrel with his wife after consuming liquor. Deceased asha Bai used to make bidi and cook food at others place to earn livelihood. On 15-3-1992 at about 10 Oclock in the night appellant after consuming liquor picked up quarrel with her and closed her in a room on account of her working at others place. When deceased resisted, appellant abused her and beat her and poured kerosene oil over her body and burnt her. Asha was rushed to the hospital in burnt condition. ( 4. ) ON the basis of information sent to the police from the hospital, an offence was registered at Police Station Motinagar, Sagar against the appellant. Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by Dr. M. C. Jain in the hospital. Half burnt clothes of the deceased as well as a container of kerosene oil and a matchstick etc. were seized from the spot. Asha Bai succumbed to her burn injuries on 19-3-1992. On receipt of intimation of her death from the hospital, merg intimation was recorded and merg inquest was made. The dead body of asha Bai was sent for post-mortem examination. After other necessary investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Sections 342,302 of IPC. ( 5. ) APPELLANT abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. According to appellant, Asha Bai was burnt accidentally while cooking food on the stove and appellant himself sustained burn injuries in the process of saving her. ( 6. ) THE Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his wife and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. ( 7. ( 6. ) THE Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his wife and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. ( 7. ) APPEAL is preferred mainly on the ground that the Trial Court erroneously convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC ignoring the defence version that deceased was accidentally burnt. ( 8. ) ARGUMENTS of both the parties were heard. Record of the Lower court perused. ( 9. ) IT was not disputed that deceased Asha Bai was the wife of the appellant. It was also no longer disputed that deceased Asha Bai died of burns injuries. It is also evident from the testimony of P. W. 1 Mahendra Kumar and p. W. 14 Narbada Prasad, who were respectively the brother and father of the appellant, that on ill-fated night on hearing shrieks, they had found both deceased Asha Bai and the appellant in burnt condition in their room. Dr. A. K. Dave, P. W. 3, who had first examined the deceased on 15-3-1992, while she was brought to the hospital in burnt condition at 11. 10 Oclock in the night, also found 85% superficial to deep burns over whole of the back, abdomen, lower chest and both upper and lower limbs, external genital of Asha Bai. ( 10. ) DR. Jinesh Diwakar (P. W. 23), who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Asha Bai on 19-3-1992, also found following burns over her body:-Back of the neck 2%, front of chest and abdomen 18%. Back of chest and abdomen 18%, right upper limb - 9%, thigh 36%. Total area of burn about 92%. ( 11. ) IN the opinion of Dr. Jinesh Diwakar (P. W. 23), the burns were superficial to deep and antemortem in nature and the cause of death of Asha Bai was shock due to extensive infected burns and septicemia. ( 12. ) IN view of the aforesaid evidence, which remained virtually unchallenged, it was duly established that deceased Asha Bai died of burn injuries. ( 13. ) THE next question to be considered is whether the appellant intentionally burnt his wife Asha Bai to death ? ( 14. ) THE conviction of the appellant is founded mainly on the basis of the dying declaration (Exh. P-17) of the deceased. ( 13. ) THE next question to be considered is whether the appellant intentionally burnt his wife Asha Bai to death ? ( 14. ) THE conviction of the appellant is founded mainly on the basis of the dying declaration (Exh. P-17) of the deceased. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court gravely erred in placing reliance on the dying declaration (Exh. P-17), which was not recorded by an Executive magistrate and which also bears a subsequent date, i. e. , 29-3-1992 as the date of recording of dying declaration, which rendered it highly suspicious and doubtful. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Trial Court also failed to notice the evidence of P. W. 1 Mahendra Kumar Dubey, P. W. 14 narbada Prasad and D. W. 2 Shivraj Singh, which revealed that deceased Asha bai was accidentally burnt. ( 15. ) WE have carefully examined the whole evidence on record. Exh. P-17 is the written dying declaration recorded by Dr. M. C. Jain (P. W. 20 ). According to Dr. M. C. Jain (P. W. 20), on 16-3-1992, he had recorded the dying declaration (Exh. P-17) of Asha Bai, who was admitted as a burn case in District hospital Sagar. He recorded dying declaration in the question-answer form and after recording her answers as given by the deceased vide Exh. P-17, he had read over the same to the deceased and also obtained her thumb impression. ( 16. ) DR. M. C. Jain (P. W. 20) also deposed in his evidence that at the time of giving dying declaration deceased was fit to give statement. He also clarified that in the dying declaration (Exh. P-17), the date appearing 29-3-1992 was mentioned by mistake and he had actually recorded the dying declaration of asha Bai only on 16-3-1992 and he had also mentioned the same date below his signatures. Dr. M. C. Jain (P. W. 20) denied the suggestion given during his cross-examination that he manipulated the dying declaration of the deceased (Exh. P-17) on 29-3-1992 at the instance of the police and he also denied that it did not contain the thumb impression of the deceased. He also clarified that thumbs of the deceased were not burnt and she was able to affix her thumb impression on the dying declaration. Dying declaration (Exh. P-17) on 29-3-1992 at the instance of the police and he also denied that it did not contain the thumb impression of the deceased. He also clarified that thumbs of the deceased were not burnt and she was able to affix her thumb impression on the dying declaration. Dying declaration (Exh. P-17) specifically mentioned that the appellant had burnt his wife Asha Bai by pouring kerosene oil over her sari and then igniting with matchstick. ( 17. ) BESIDES written dying declaration (Exh. P-17), there is. also evidence of the oral dying declaration made by the deceased as found in the deposition of P. W. 9 Mithilesh, sister of the deceased, P. W. 10 Sarita, her sister-in-law and P. W. 12 Purushottam, brother of the deceased as well as in the evidence of P. W. 16 Mahendra Nath, at whose place deceased used to work. The aforesaid four witnesses have categorically deposed in their evidence that when they went to see the deceased in the hospital, Asha Bai had told them that appellant had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil over her. All of them have negatived the suggestion given during their cross-examination that Asha Bai told them that she was accidentally burnt while cooking. ( 18. ) ALTHOUGH, P. W. 1 Mahendra Kumar Dubey, brother of the appellant as well as Narbada Prasad (P. W. 14), the father of the appellant have tried to depose that deceased Asha Bai had told them that she was accidentally burnt, but they were declared hostile to prosecution and were also contradicted in this behalf with their police statement (Exh. P- l and Exh. P-19 ). Due to omission of this fact in their police statement, the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses that deceased told them of accidental burn appears to be a definite improvement. No such information was either given to the police or to the doctor that deceased was accidentally burnt. It appears that these two witnesses p. W. 1 and P. W. 14, being father and brother of the appellant, have subsequently made such statement in order to save the appellant, which is not liable to be accepted. D. W. 2 Shivraj Singh has also deposed that only appellant had told him of the accidental burn of the deceased and deceased herself never talked to him in this behalf. ( 19. D. W. 2 Shivraj Singh has also deposed that only appellant had told him of the accidental burn of the deceased and deceased herself never talked to him in this behalf. ( 19. ) EVEN otherwise, the defence of accidental burn of the deceased also does not appear to be probable or true. Had it been a case of accidental burn, the appellant would have immediately tried to save his wife and she would not have sustained 85% to 92% burns in that case. In any case, defence theory of accidental burn is not found to be trustworthy and not liable to be accepted. ( 20. ) ON the other hand, there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. M. C. Jain (P. W. 20) who recorded the dying declaration (Exh. P-17) made by the deceased. There are no reasons that Dr. M. C. Jain (P. W. 20) would manipulate the dying declaration (Exh. P-17 ). He also does not appear to have any animus against the appellant. ( 21. ) THERE are no reasons to disbelieve the statement of Dr. M. C. Jain (P. W. 20) that the date 29-3-1992 was wrongly mentioned by him by mistake, particularly when the date written below his signature is mentioned as 16-3-1992, when the dying declaration was recorded. There are also no reasons to doubt his testimony that Exh. P-17 contains the actual answers given by the deceased and also contains her thumb impression. ( 22. ) IN fact, there are no reasons to doubt or suspect that dying declaration (Exh. P-17) is not the true or voluntary statement made by the deceased. It is also evident from the doctors testimony that when he had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, she was fit to give her statement. There is no material on record to indicate that dying declaration (Exh. P-17) was the result of any tutoring or promoting or product of imagination. ( 23. ) DYING declaration (Exh. P-17) cannot be rejected on this ground that it was not recorded by the Executive Magistrate. There is no such legal requirement that the dying declaration in all cases must necessarily be recorded by an Executive Magistrate. Dying declaration recorded by Dr. M. C. Jain (P. W. 20), who is a responsible officer and disinterested witness, could well be relied upon, when it is found to be truthful and reliable. There is no such legal requirement that the dying declaration in all cases must necessarily be recorded by an Executive Magistrate. Dying declaration recorded by Dr. M. C. Jain (P. W. 20), who is a responsible officer and disinterested witness, could well be relied upon, when it is found to be truthful and reliable. ( 24. ) NOW, dying declaration (Exh. P-17) of the deceased as recorded by the Dr. M. C. Jain (P. W. 20) specifically mentioned that the appellant had picked up a quarrel with his wife (deceased) in the night on account of her working at others place and then poured kerosene oil over her sari and ignited with matchstick. It is also reflected from the evidence of the brother of appellant, namely, P. W. 1 Mahendra Kumar Dubey, as also from the testimony of his father narbada Prasad (P. W. 14) that the appellant used to consume liquor and pick up a quarrel with his wife. Therefore, there are no reasons to doubt that dying declaration (Exh. P-17) does not depict the true state of affairs or is in any manner doubtful. In fact, the dying declaration (Exh. P-17) recorded by Dr. M. C. Jain is found to be truthful and voluntary and could be safely relied upon. Besides, there are no reasons to doubt the bulk of evidence regarding oral dying declaration made by the deceased to the effect that the appellant burnt her by pouring kerosene oil. ( 25. ) THE law relating to the dying declaration is summed up by the Apex court in the case of Muttu Kutty and another Vs. State by Inspector of Police, tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2005 SC 1473 , and it is reiterated that dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction, if the Court is satisfied that declaration was true and voluntary. ( 26. ) AS said above, besides her oral dying declaration, in her written dying declaration (Exh. P-17), deceased categorically stated that the appellant, her husband had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil over her body. Therefore, appellant could well be held responsible for intentionally causing her consequent death. ( 27. ) THE mere fact that appellant subsequently tried to extinguish the fire and got himself burnt in the process of saving her, does not dilute his prior reprehensible act of pouring kerosene oil over his wife and igniting her with matchstick. Therefore, appellant could well be held responsible for intentionally causing her consequent death. ( 27. ) THE mere fact that appellant subsequently tried to extinguish the fire and got himself burnt in the process of saving her, does not dilute his prior reprehensible act of pouring kerosene oil over his wife and igniting her with matchstick. ( 28. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion, that the trial Court committed no error in finding the appellant guilty for committing murder of his wife. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court under Section 302, IPC and life sentence awarded to him do not warrant any interference in this appeal. Thus, we find no merit and substance in this appeal. Appeal fails and is dismissed. Criminal Appeal dismissed.