Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh and Subash Chandra Jha JJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the sole accused appellant against the Judgment dated 12th July, 2002 passed by 3rd, Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 219 of 2001/52 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and by impugned order dated 15.7.2002 she has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is based upon fardbeyan of the daughter-in-law of the appellant Kaushaliya Devi recorded on 30th December, 2000 at 2.45 P.M. in village Parari P.S. and District Sitamarhi. Subsequently, the injured informant died while under going treatment in Sadar Hospital Sitamarhi within 24 hours. According to the fardbeyan on 30th December 2000 at about 10 A.M. the mother- in-law of the informant, Janki Devi, the appellant ordered her to apply mud on Tat (partition made out of babmoos pieces). At that time the informant was cooking food and therefore she replied that she would do that work later on. On this the accused/appellant applied fire to terrycotton Sari which the informant was wearing and as a result she got burn injury from feet to head. After setting fire to the informant her mother-in-law (the appellant) fled away somewhere but on hearing her cry the people from neighbourhood came. The appellant used to assault the informant in past also. The informants husband was a labourer engaged at Chapra in manufacture of brick and her father- in-law was at Patna working as a rickshaw- puller. The informants grand-mother-inlaw, Somari Devi was taking care of the injured informant. 3. After recording the fardbeyan of the injured informant the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anand Kumar Sinha (P.W.11) sent her for treatment to Sadar Hospital, He inspected the place of occurrence where he found the informant lying in burnt condition. On the next day he received information from the hospital regarding death of the informant. He went to the hospital and prepared the inquest report. He recorded the statement of witnesses and submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellant. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and therefore she was put on trial and has been convicted by the impugned judgment and order as noticed above. 4. He recorded the statement of witnesses and submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellant. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and therefore she was put on trial and has been convicted by the impugned judgment and order as noticed above. 4. The details of the case appearing from the trend of cross-examination is that the informant was suffering from disease of Mirgi (Epilepsy) and as a result while cooking food she sustained accidental burn injuries and died as a result of such injuries. However, no defence witness has been examined and no papers have been brought on record to show that the informant sufferred from disease of epilepsy or any similar disease. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined 12 witnesses in all. No useful purposes will be served by going into details of the non-official prosecution witnesses because they all have been declared hostile as they preferred not to support the prosecution case. Cross-examination of such hostile witnesses discloses that initially before the Investigating Officer they had supported the prosecution case in material particulars and their attentions were drawn to their such earlier statements but since they are mostly relations of the accused/ appellant or are her neighbours and the deceased was daughter-in-law of the appellant non-official witnesses chose not to depose against the appellant, However; the formal witness P.W. 12, Shailendra Kumar has proved the postmortem report as Exhibit-5 and the prosecution case is based mostly upon the fardbeyan of the deceased informant which has been proved and supported by the Investigating Officer, S.I. Anand Kumar Verma, P.W.11. 6. It is necessary to consider the deposition of P.W.11 in some details because he had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant which has been treated as dying declaration of the deceased informant leading to conviction of the accused/appellant. P.W.11 has disclosed in his evidence that on 30.12.2000 he was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at Sitamarhi Police Station and on that date Choukidar Md. Salim came to the Police Station at 13.30 hours and disclosed that a lady named Kaushalya Devi of village Parari has received burn injury. On that basis Station Diary Entry No. 916 dated 30th December, 2000 was recorded and P.W.11 proceeded to village Parari. Salim came to the Police Station at 13.30 hours and disclosed that a lady named Kaushalya Devi of village Parari has received burn injury. On that basis Station Diary Entry No. 916 dated 30th December, 2000 was recorded and P.W.11 proceeded to village Parari. There at 14.45 hours at the house of the injured Kaushalya Devi he recorded her fardbeyan. After recording the same he read it over to the injured and thereafter she put her right thumb impression on the fardbeyan because although she was literate, her entire body had suffered burn injury. He has deposed that fardbeyan was recorded in presence of Vinod Sah (P.W. 1) and the said witness signed on the fardbeyan in his presence. He also stated that over the said fardbeyan he also recorded his forwarding. He has identified and proved the fardbeyan written in his own hand writing and signature which has been marked as Exhibit 1. He has also identified the order instituting the case on the same very fardbeyan passed by one Inspector who was Officer- incharge at that time. The signature and writing of that Officer Incharge has been identified and marked as Exhibit-2. P.W.11 has also proved the formal F.I.R. as exhibit-3, the inquest report as exhibit-4 and has deposed that he received injury report and post-mortem report and thereafter handed over the charge of investigation to the Officer-lncharge. Apparently this witness had conducted the entire material investigation. 7. P.W.11 has been subjected to detailed cross-examination, specially on the condition of the informant at the time of recording of fardbeyan. From the statement of the witness to such questions it is clear that he found the injured informant badly burnt but at that particular moment the injured was neither tossing nor shouting and she was serious but not in any kind of shock. He has stated that in recording the fardbeyan he took about half an hour and during this period the informant was rendering her statement normally and frequently, (it appears that the word frequently has been used at two places in paragraph 30 of the deposition of P.W.11 by inadvertent error or ignorance in lieu of the word fluently). The witness has stated that he kept on recording whatever statement was given by the injured informant. 8. The witness has stated that he kept on recording whatever statement was given by the injured informant. 8. P.W.11 has frankly admitted that he has not recorded any certificate on the fardbeyan that informant was in her full senses and capable of giving statement. He has also frankly admitted that he did not make any prayer to any doctor in the hospital or to any Magistrate for recording the dying declaration of the informant. In fact from his evidence it is apparent that he was not anticipating the death of the informant by the next date and therefore he went to the hospital only when he received information of informants death and then prepared the inquest report (Ext 4) on 31.12.2000 at 10 A.M. Such frank replies of P.W.11 do not adversely affect the prosecution case or the credibility of his deposition. This witness has not been cross-examined at all in respect of his statement in-chief that he recorded the fardbeyan in presence of Vinod Sah (P.W.1) and that witness signed on the fardbeyan in his presence. The said Vinod Sah (P.W.1) has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case by stating that he does not know anything about the occurrence and police had not recorded his statement but he has not anywhere denied to have signed on the fardbeyan. In fact the defence has not challenged the signature of Vinod Sah which appears on the fardbeyan. We also find no good reason not to place reliance upon the evidence of P.W.11 to the effect that he truthfully recorded the fardbeyan of injured informant at the place of occurrence and at that time she was lucid, fluent and not in any king of shock, although she had sustained serious burn injuries. 9. On a careful perusal of the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1 we find that on its face the document inspires confidence on which thumb impression of the informant is clear as is the signature of Vinod Sah (P.W.1). The official orders and endorsements are also recorded on the same document and the orders and endorsement have also been identified and proved by the Investigating Officer. The contents of the fardbeyan, which has been later on treated as dying declaration also show that the informant at that stage was not only conscious but was in full control of her thinking and speaking faculties. The contents of the fardbeyan, which has been later on treated as dying declaration also show that the informant at that stage was not only conscious but was in full control of her thinking and speaking faculties. She has given not a brief statement only in respect of actual assault or putting her to fire by the accused appelalnt but also preceding talks which led to the occurrence and the subsequent development that after putting the informant to fire the accused/appellant had run away and she was being cared by her grand mother-in-law. She has given the details where her husband was working as labourer and where her father-in-law was working as rickshaw-puller. These details and contents of the fardbeyan also re-assure us regarding proper physical and mental condition of the informant while she gave such statement to the Sub- Inspector of Police (P.W.11). The materials on record show that at the relevant time P.W.2, Pinku Kumari @ Gorki a daughter of the accused/appellant was also in the house, but the fardbeyan is confined in alleging the offence only against the accused/appellant and not against any other member of the family of informants husband. Hence, We find no good reason to take a different view from the Trial Court that the fardbeyan is reliable as a dying declaration as proved by the Investigating Officer (P.W.11) who is also found to be reliable and truthful. 10. Even the conduct of the accused/ appellant which is apparent from the contents of the fardbeyan, in fleeing away from the house and not being present to take care of the injured and not appearing before the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence to give her own verision, if there was any other version, shows the guilty mind of the accused/ appellant. 11. Thus, considering all the facts and circumstances, in spite of material witnesses turning hostile we find ourselves in full agreement with the Trial Court that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 302 i.P.C. against the accused/appellant. We find no good reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. or with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life awarded to her for the said offence. Thus, finding no merit in the appeal we order that it will be treated as dismissed.