Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has challenged his conviction and order of sentence passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in s. T. No. 146/98, decided on 22. 10. 99. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 302 of ipc for committing murder of his wife Gangotri Bai by setting her ablaze and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of rs. 1,000/-, in default imprisonment for three months, by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, deceased Gangotri Bai was the second wife of the appellant and was residing with him at jahangirabad, Bhopal alongwith her three children from her first husband. On 7. 3. 98 at about 8oclock at night, appellant quarrelled with his wife Gangotri Bai at his house and also gave beating to her. Thereafter at midnight appellant poured kerosene oil over his wife Gangotri Bai and set her ablaze. Upon hue and cry, appellants three step children got up and witnessed the incident. Gangotri Bai came out of her house in burnt condition and shouted for help. Her neighbour, Sayra Bano tried to extinguish fire by pouring water over her. Gangotri Bai was then rushed to Hamidiya Hospital and was admitted in the Burn ward and the Police was informed. ( 4. ) THE FIR of the incident in the form of Dehati Nalishi was recorded in the hospital at the instance of Gangotri Bai, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellant and was investigated. Her dying declaration was also recorded by executive Magistrate at Hamidiya Hospital. Gangotri Bai, however, succumbed to her burn injuries on 9. 3. 98. Intimation of her death was given to Police Station, Jahangirabad. Merg intimation was recorded and merg inquest report was prepared. The dead body of deceased Gangotri Bai was sent for postmortem examination. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 of IPC and was put to trial. ( 5. ) APPELLANT abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. ( 6. ) AFTER trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, learned Trial Judge found the appellant guilty for committing murder of his wife Gangotri Bai by pouring kerosene oil over her and setting her ablaze and convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as aforesaid by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. ( 7. ) AFTER trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, learned Trial Judge found the appellant guilty for committing murder of his wife Gangotri Bai by pouring kerosene oil over her and setting her ablaze and convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as aforesaid by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. ( 7. ) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. ( 8. ) IT was no longer disputed that deceased Gangotri Bai died of burn injuries. It is also reflected from the testimony of dr. Dhananjay Sharma (P. W-8) that on 7. 3. 98 Gangotri Bai (hereinafter to be referred as deceased) was brought to Hamidiya hospital with burn injuries over her face, chest, stomach and smell of kerosene was also present over her body. Dr. D. K. Satpathi (P. W-9), who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased gangotri Bai, also found second to third degree burns over her face, neck, chest, abdomen and other parts of the body. In the opinion of Dr. D. K. Satpathi (P. W-9), deceased Gangotri died due to cardio respiratory arrest as a result of burn and its complications. The detailed postmortem report (Ex. P-11) is also placed on record. ( 9. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the trial court gravely erred in convicting the appellant by placing implicit reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased and the testimony of three step children of the appellant. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant and submitted that the guilt of the appellant was established by the dying declaration of the deceased as well as bulk of ocular evidence on record. ( 11. ) THE dying declaration (Ex. P-16) was recorded and proved by Executive Magistrate Maksood Ahmed (P. W. 13 ). Maksood Ahmed (P. W. 13) categorically deposed in his evidence that he had recorded the dying declaration of deceased Gangotri bai, the wife of Raju @ Rajendra on 7. 3. 98 at new burn ward, hamidiya Hospital at 1. 05 oclock in the noon after obtaining a certificate from the doctor that Gangotri Bai was fit to give her statement and also obtained her thumb impression on her dying declaration (Ex. P-16 ). 3. 98 at new burn ward, hamidiya Hospital at 1. 05 oclock in the noon after obtaining a certificate from the doctor that Gangotri Bai was fit to give her statement and also obtained her thumb impression on her dying declaration (Ex. P-16 ). According to Executive Magistrate Maksood ahmed (P. W-13), Gangotri Bai had stated before him that her husband had poured kerosene oil over her and lit fire by matchstick. ( 12. ) DR. Satish Pillai (P. W.-19) also testified that before recording of the dying declaration of the deceased by Executive magistrate, he had examined the deceased and found that she was fit to give statement and he also made an endorsement to this effect on the dying declaration (Ex. P-16) and also affixed his signatures. He further testified that dying declaration (Ex. P-16)was recorded in his presence and declarant remained fully conscious during her statement and he had also appended a note to the same effect at the foot of the dying declaration (Ex. P-16 ). ( 13. ) THERE are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of executive Magistrate Maksood Ahmed (P. W.-13) and Dr. Satish pillai (P. W.-19) that deceased Gangotri Bai gave her dying declaration as per Ex. P-16 and she remained fully conscious during her statement. There are no reasons to suspect that Executive magistrate Maksood Ahmed (P. W-13) would himself manipulate the dying declaration (Ex. P-16) or it was not the statement of deceased. ( 14. ) THERE is nothing on record to indicate that dying declaration (Ex. P-16) was the result of any tutoring or prompting or product of imagination. Thus, there are no reasons to doubt or suspect that dying declaration (Ex. P-16) is not a true or voluntary statement made by the deceased. The dying declaration (Ex. P-16) is a detailed document and recorded in question and answer form and it clearly and unequivocally indicated that the appellant quarrelled with the deceased at night and burnt her alive by sprinkling kerosene oil over her. Needless to emphasize, as also reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Muttu Kutty and another Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu reported in 2005 (9) SCC page 113 that dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction if it is found to be true and voluntary. ( 15. Needless to emphasize, as also reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Muttu Kutty and another Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu reported in 2005 (9) SCC page 113 that dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction if it is found to be true and voluntary. ( 15. ) BESIDES, there is also ocular evidence of the incident as given by the three step children of the appellant, namely, Anju (P. W.-14), Manju (P. W.-15) and Sanjay (P. W-18), who have clearly deposed that appellant poured kerosene oil over the body of the deceased and lit fire by matchstick. The evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses is found to be natural, cogent and trustworthy. ( 16. ) THERE is also evidence of oral dying declaration coming forth through the deposition of Sayra Bano (P. W-2), who was the neighbour of the deceased and poured water on seeing her in burnt condition. P. W-2 Sayra Bano deposed in her evidence that deceased had told her just after the incident that her husband had poured kerosene oil over her and lit fire by matchstick. Although, Sayra Bano (P. W.-2) was declared hostile by the prosecution and revealed the fact of oral dying declaration of the deceased during her cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, yet the same is found to be reliable upon close scrutiny of her evidence. It is well settled, as reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court Pg. 1853, that the evidence of a hostile witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off from the record altogether, but the same can be accepted to the extent the version of such witness is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. ( 17. ) IN the wake of aforesaid, we are of the opinion, that the trial court did not err in relying upon the dying declaration (Ex. P-16) of the deceased and the other ocular and corroborative evidence on record and rightly held the appellant guilty for intentionally causing the death of his wife Gangotri Bai by pouring kerosene oil over her and setting her ablaze. ( 18. ) THUS, the conviction of appellant, as recorded by the trial court under Section 302 of IPC and life sentence awarded to him with fine of Rs. ( 18. ) THUS, the conviction of appellant, as recorded by the trial court under Section 302 of IPC and life sentence awarded to him with fine of Rs. 1,000/-do not warrant any interference in appeal. ( 19. ) APPEAL fails and is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant and sentence passed on him under Section 302 of IPC are affirmed.