JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Mr Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The State preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 13-09-2002, of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in S.C.No.565 of 2000. The respondent herein was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., for causing the death of one Rajia Bee, by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire on 05-08-2000. 2. On 05-08-2000 the deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital, Kurnool, with burn injuries. On receiving the requisition from the Duty Medical Officer, the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class recorded the statement. In the statement, the deceased Rajia Bee, stated that she was running a hotel at Betamcherla, and there, she came in contact with the respondent, who was running a weigh bridge. According to her, she was having a sum of Rs.50,000/-, and the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from her. It is also said to have insisted on lending the balance of Rs.20,000/- also, and proposed that she can live with him. After stating some more details, she mentioned that at about 7:00 p.m., on that day, when she insisted on returning of the amount of Rs.50,000/-, the respondent poured kerosene and set her on fire. Based on Ex.P- 5, Crime No.192 of 2000 was registered and further investigation was taken up. While Rajia Bee was undergoing treatment in hospital, she stabbed herself with a piece of glass, on 11-08-2000, and she expired of the injuries at 10:35 p.m. Autopsy of the dead body was conducted. The charge, as aforementioned, was framed against the respondent. On denial of the charge, trial was conducted in which, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14, and filed Exs.P-1 to P-17. Through the judgment under appeal, the trial Court acquitted the respondent. Hence, this appeal by the State. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the dying declaration, marked as Ex.P-5 is clear in its purport and content, and is corroborated by the medical and circumstantial evidence. He contends that though the self-inflicted injuries, on the part of the deceased, are partially the cause of her death, the respondent cannot go scot-free, for the burn injuries caused by him, to the deceased, by him. 4. He contends that though the self-inflicted injuries, on the part of the deceased, are partially the cause of her death, the respondent cannot go scot-free, for the burn injuries caused by him, to the deceased, by him. 4. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that none other than the husband of the deceased, as PW- 3, stated that the deceased was a short-tempered woman and in the habit of becoming wild, even at petty quarrels. He contends that the Doctor, PW-7, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, categorically stated that the death of the deceased is attributable mostly to the stab injuries, caused by herself, with a piece of glass. 5. PW-1 was examined by the prosecution, to prove the fact, that the respondent himself has taken the deceased to the hospital. This witness and PW-3, the husband of the deceased, were declared hostile. PW-4 is the Staff Nurse in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool. She spoke to the effect that at about 1:00 p.m. on 11-08-2000, she heard the sound of breaking of glasses of the window, and when she went to the place, she found the deceased had taken out a broken glass piece and stabbed herself in the stomach. PW-5 is the Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. PW-6 is the Doctor, who certified the death of the deceased. PW-7 is the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy, and he opined that, had there been no stab injuries, the deceased would not have died. PWs 8 and 11 are the witnesses to the inquest, were declared hostile. PW-9 is the A.S.I of Police, who registered the crime, on receiving the intimation about the deceased receiving burn injuries. PW-10 is the S.I of Police, who received the intimation of the death of the deceased, and recorded the statements of PWs 1, 3 and 4. PW-12 is the Doctor, who treated the respondent herein for the burn injuries, and PW-13 is the Circle Inspector, who supervised the investigation, undertaken by PW-10. 6. Though there is serious dispute as to the alleged extra marital relationship between the deceased and the respondent, there is adequate evidence to prove that the deceased and the respondent were together, when the latter received burn injuries. 6. Though there is serious dispute as to the alleged extra marital relationship between the deceased and the respondent, there is adequate evidence to prove that the deceased and the respondent were together, when the latter received burn injuries. The reason is that, at the same point of time, the respondent also received burn injuries, and there is an admission on his part, that he tried to put off the fire. However, according to him, the deceased set herself on fire, in the process of putting it off, he received burn injuries, and thereafter, he shifted the deceased to the hospital. Therefore, the focus must be to the question as to how the burn injuries were sustained by the deceased. 7. In her dying declaration, marked as Ex.P-5, the deceased stated that she lent a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent in two installments, and when she insisted on repayment of the same, the latter poured kerosene and set her on fire. Reference was also made to extra marital relationship between herself and the respondent. From the fact that the respondent also received burn injuries, as is evident from the deposition of PW-12, the Doctor, who treated him, it becomes improbable, that he had set the deceased on fire. If his intention was to kill the deceased, there would not have been any occasion for him, either to receive burn injuries for himself, or to put off the flames, much less to shift her to the hospital. 8. That the death of the deceased was not on account of the burn injuries, is evident, beyond any pale of doubt. One important fact in this regard is that, the deceased was undergoing treatment ever since 05-08-2000, in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, for the burn injuries, and on 11-08-2000 she had inflicted several injuries to her with the piece of glass. PW-4, the staff nurse of the hospital, stated: "...On 11-08-2000, I was on duty in the Burns ward from 7:00 A.M. to 1-00 P.M. The patient by name Rajia Bee was taking treatment in Female Burns ward as an in-patient. She was in Intensive Care of Female Burns Ward. At about 1-00 P.M. on that day while I was in Male Burns ward which is a little away from Intensive Care Unit, I heard the sound of breaking of a glass from the window side of Intensive Care Unit. She was in Intensive Care of Female Burns Ward. At about 1-00 P.M. on that day while I was in Male Burns ward which is a little away from Intensive Care Unit, I heard the sound of breaking of a glass from the window side of Intensive Care Unit. Then I went to the Intensive Care Unit. I saw that the deceased Rajia Bee was falling on the ground having broken glass piece in her hand and having stab injuries on her stomach. I also saw that the glass of the window was broken. I was examined by the Police". There was no contradiction of this, by the prosecution. On the same day the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 9. PW-7, the Doctor, who conducted postmortem, mentioned his observations in Ex.P- 7. In his deposition, he stated that the cause of the death of the deceased. According to him, the burn injuries were almost in the healing process, and they were to the extent of 50%. As to the cause of death, he said: "If there would have been no stab injuries, the deceased would not have died on the said date and time. The state of mind of a person can be assessed only by the psychiatrist". 10. The tendency of the deceased, to inflict injuries upon her, and to become wild, even at the smallest provocation; is evident from two circumstances: The deposition of PW-4, staff nurse, has already been referred to, in the previous paragraphs. Hardly there existed any provocation, for her to inflict to herself, the injuries, even while undergoing treatment for burn injuries. The second circumstance is the deposition of none other than her husband. As PW-3, he stated, in his chief examination, that the cause of the deceased, setting herself on fire was, that the respondent refused to register a plot in her name. Obviously, on account of this reason, he was declared hostile. In his cross- examination, on behalf of the respondent, PW-3 stated as under: "I am employee in a hotel. My wife used to do household work. The deceased was not having any savings. The deceased used to loose temper on petty quarrels and once she had beat me with a vegetable cutter on my left fore-arm. (The witness shows a healed scar on his left fore-arm). My wife used to do household work. The deceased was not having any savings. The deceased used to loose temper on petty quarrels and once she had beat me with a vegetable cutter on my left fore-arm. (The witness shows a healed scar on his left fore-arm). The deceased used to threaten me stating that she would set fire to herself by pouring kerosene on her. The deceased left my house on 5-8-2000 and till then she was with me". 11. From the tendency of the deceased to inflict injuries upon herself, or to get wild even at the small provocation, can easily be imagined. To a substantial extent, these circumstances belie the statements, contained in the dying declaration, marked as Ex.P-5. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses. Though Ex.P-5 does not suffer from any procedural infirmities, and extensive in content, it can constitute the basis for conviction of the respondent, if only there existed any corroborative evidence. In this case, there is no corroborative evidence to support Ex.P-5. On the other hand, the evidence on record, particularly that of the husband of the deceased, PW-3, and the staff nurse PW-4, belie most of the statements contained in Ex.P-5. 12. The trial Court had arrived at proper and just conclusion and we are not persuaded to take a different view. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed.