Judgment ( 1. ) THE appeal has been preferred by the appellants Yuvraj and sumanbai aggrieved by judgment dated 29. 10. 1999 passed by Second Additional sessions Judge, Burhanpur in S. T No. 154/98. Appellant No. 1 Yuvraj has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one year. He has also been convicted for the offence punishable under section 449 IPC and sentenced to R. I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one year. Appellant No. 2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC and sentenced to R. I. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment for one month. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that on 28. 11. 1997 at about 6 am suman Bai and Rekha Bai were answering the call of nature in the drainage near the house of Indu Bai, which was objected to by deceased Indu Bai. On that suman Bai, Rekha Bai and Indu Bai quarreled. Deceased Indu Bai was beaten upon and thrown in the drainage by Suman Bai. After sometime Yuvraj son of suman Bai came on the spot, deceased Indu Bai went inside the house to save herself, Yuvraj followed her, poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze with the help of match-stick. Indu Bai raised hue and cry, several persons assembled, her husband was not in the house, daughter was sent to summon her. She was taken to the hospital at Shahpur by her husband Bhagwat and Vijay. Dr. R. C. Dalai attended her in the hospital at Shahpur and sent intimation to concerned police station. As condition of Indu Bai was precarious, she was referred to hospital at burhanpur. She was taken to Burhanpur. On the basis of intimation entry was made in the general diary of police station Shahpur, investigation was set in, dying declaration was recorded by Kashinath Patil (PW-7), Nayab Tehsildar cum executive Magistrate. During marg investigation, the statement (P-20) was recorded by Gopi Chand, head constable of police whereas after registration of first information report, statement (P-4) under section 161 Cr. During marg investigation, the statement (P-20) was recorded by Gopi Chand, head constable of police whereas after registration of first information report, statement (P-4) under section 161 Cr. P. C. of the deceased indu Bai was recorded by Shri B. S. Sisodiya (PW-12), investigating officer. After completion of investigation accused was charge sheeted. ( 3. ) THE accused abjured the guilt and contended that they have been falsely implicated in the case. No quarrel took place. In all three persons were put to trial. Yuvraj and Suman Bai have been convicted as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the sentence and conviction imposed, the appeal has been preferred by Yuvraj and Suman Bai. ( 4. ) SHRI L. N. Sakle, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that dying declaration could not have been relied upon. Even the husband of the deceased has not supported the prosecution case. He was declared hostile. Other witness examined in the case have also not supported the prosecution case. There are contradictions, in the dying declaration (P-l 1), five persons were implicated whereas in the statement (P-4) recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. only 3 persons were implicated, thus the deceased was not sure and was changing her version time to time and it would not be safe to rely "upon the dying declarations on the basis of which conviction has been recorded by the court below. ( 5. ) SHRI Aseem Dixit, learned Govt. Advocate for State has supported the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellants. He has submitted that factum of recording the dying declaration has been proved and in the material facts mentioned in the dying declaration there is no material contradictions. With respect to role of the accused Yuvraj, the statement of. deceased is consistent that he has entered the house, poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. Dying declarations were recorded with promptitude. Dying declarations have been proved by Kashinath Patil (PW-7), Dr. Lata V. Patil (PW-2) and B. S. Sisodiya (PW-12 ). Thus no case for interference in the appeal is made out. ( 6. ) IT appears that there was no eye witness of the incident. Only the daughter aged 3 years of the deceased was in the house at the time when Yuvraj entered the house and poured Kerosene oil and set the deceased ablaze. Thus no case for interference in the appeal is made out. ( 6. ) IT appears that there was no eye witness of the incident. Only the daughter aged 3 years of the deceased was in the house at the time when Yuvraj entered the house and poured Kerosene oil and set the deceased ablaze. When incident has taken place inside the house obviously the incident could not have been witnessed by the outsiders. The neighbour and husband were not present on the spot they came later on, for one reason or other have not supported the prosecution case. ( 7. ) WE are left in the instant case with three dying declarations. One of the dying declaration (P-11) was recorded by Kashinath Patil (PW-7), Nayab Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate. The factum of recording of dying declaration has been proved by Kashinath Patil (PW-7 ). Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dalai (PW-1) has stated that deceased was brought to the Primary Health Center, Shahpur at about 8. 50 am, smell of kerosene oil was coming from the body and hairs of the deceased. Her clothes were burnt. She was having 35% burns. The incident was caused within 2-3 hours. He has referred her to Nehru Hospital, Burhanpur. He has proved the report (P-l ). There is absolutely nothing to doubt the correctness of statement of Kashinath Patil (PW-7) with respect to recording of dying declaration (P-ll ). He has stated that deceased was in fit condition to give her statement. Doctor had made the endorsement to that effect on the dying declaration. At the time of recording of statement (P-ll) no one else was present, it took 20 min. to record the dying declaration. On being asked by the police and as per request of Tehsildar, he had gone to record the statement of the deceased at Nehru Hospital, Burhanpur. He started recording of the dying declaration at 1. 25 pm on the date of incident itself and concluded it at 1. 45 pm. During the course of investigation of marg intimation under section 174 Cr. P. C. statement (P-20) of the deceased Indu Bai was recorded by Gopi Chand (DW-2), headconstable of the police. Gopichand has proved that he has recorded statement (P-20) which has to be treated as dying declaration. Yet another statement of deceased (Ex. D-4) of Indu Bai was recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. statement (P-20) of the deceased Indu Bai was recorded by Gopi Chand (DW-2), headconstable of the police. Gopichand has proved that he has recorded statement (P-20) which has to be treated as dying declaration. Yet another statement of deceased (Ex. D-4) of Indu Bai was recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. by investigating officer B. S. Sisodiya (PW-12 ). When we read all the three dying declarations conjointly, we do not find any contradictions much less substantial one, Incident has taken place in two parts, it started on the road which was outside the house in which 4-5 persons were present and deceased Indu Bai was beaten upon by Suman Bai, later on Yuvraj came to the spot, Indu Bai went inside the house to save herself, Yuvraj followed her, poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. The role of Yuvraj is consistent in all the three dying declarations (P-ll, P-20 and D-4 ). There is absolutely nothing to doubt the facts mentioned therein. Dying declaration (P-ll) and (P-20) were recorded on the same date with promptitude. Statement (D-4) under section 161 cr. P. C. was also recorded on 1. 12. 1997. In the statement (P-ll) as several persons were present out side the house, name of five persons were mentioned but as per statement Yuvraj was the only person who had entered the house and set the deceased ablaze after pouring Kerosene oil on her. Similar is the position in dying declarations (P-20) and (D-4) respectively recorded by Gopi Chand, Head constable and B. S. Sisodiya (PW-12) Investigating Officer. Merely by the fact that name of three persons were mentioned in the dying declaration (D-4), as additional names related to incident which took place outside the house as deceased indu Bai objected to the answering of call of nature in drainage by Suman Bai and Rekha Bai. We find that no dent is caused with respect to role of Yuvraj poured kerosene oil and Suman Bai who caused marpeet in outside incident. Statement (P-20) has been pqoved by Gopi Chand and (D-4) has been proved by b. S. Sisodiya (PW-12 ). With respect to truthfulness of the dying declarations, we have no iota of doubt that the facts mentioned in dying declarations are correct and can be acted upon. Deceased was set ablaze in the house as apparent from the various documents on record. With respect to truthfulness of the dying declarations, we have no iota of doubt that the facts mentioned in dying declarations are correct and can be acted upon. Deceased was set ablaze in the house as apparent from the various documents on record. Husband of deceased Indu Bai namely Bhagwat (PW-4) was declared hostile, still no dent was caused in the dying declaration of the deceased. Bhagwat was not in the house, he was not an eye witness of incident, he was summoned by her daughter aged 3 years, Bhagwat was not present in the house, obviously he could not have stated the fact who was responsible for setting the deceased ablaze. He appears to have been won over apart from other neighbours, they also did not support the prosecution. In the facts and circumstances of the case as factum of recording of dying declaration has been proved, truthfulness of the facts mentioned therein is also beyond periphery of doubt. We find that conviction and sentence of the appellant Yuvraj under section 302 of IPC read with section 449 of IPC calls for no interference. ( 8. ) ON answering the call of nature quarrel took place between Suman Bai and the deceased Indu Bai, Indu Bai has been thrown in the drainage by Suman Bai, she has been sentenced to undergo 3 months RI and fine of Rs. 1000/ -. She has undergone 9 days imprisonment. We convict her for the period already undergone and maintain the fine imposed and. reduce the sentence imposed on Suman Bai under section 323 of IPC. ( 9. ) RESULTANTLY, appeal filed by Yuvraj is hereby dismissed and the appeal preferred by Suman Bai is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. Appeal allowed in part.