JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 30.6.2004 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C. No. 95/2003 acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 307 and 302 IPC. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.11.2002 at about 12 noon in the house of the deceased Zareena aged about 25 years, bearing D. No. 2317, 22nd Cross, Ashoka Road, Lashkar Mohalla within the limits of Mandi Police Station, Mysore the accused threw acid on the body of the deceased Zareena, thereby she sustained burn injuries and succumbed to the same on 27.12.2002 while being treated in the hospital, thereby it is alleged that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased which is punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. It is further charged against the accused that on the said date, time and place, he has voluntarily caused hurt to C.W. 1 Haseena by means of acid thereby he has committed offence under Section 324 IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 18 witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P43 and produced M.Os. 1 to 9. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. He has got marked Ex. D1 and 2 being the ration card of D.W. 1. He has examined one Akthar as D.W. 1. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of both the charges. Hence, the State has filed this appeal. 5. The prosecution commenced with filing of the complaint on 22.11.2002 at about 3.15 p.m. with Mandi Police Station, Mysore by Kum. Zareena, the deceased, which is treated as dying declaration subsequently. In the said statement, which is marked as Ex. P9, the deceased had stated that she was working with her brother by name Firoz in his house. The accused is residing in the opposite house and he was living there since four months. He was telling to her sister-in-law Haseena that they should give Zareena in marriage to him about one month back for which her sister-in-law told him that his parents should approach them and requested her brother since he knew that the parents would not agree for the marriage. He informs this fact to their house. He was telling to her sister-in-law Haseena that they should give Zareena in marriage to him about one month back for which her sister-in-law told him that his parents should approach them and requested her brother since he knew that the parents would not agree for the marriage. He informs this fact to their house. Further, her sister-in-law told him to send his mother so that they would see that the marriage is performed. At about 12 noon on 2.11.2002 when she was in her house, the accused came with a tumbler in his hand and told the deceased Zareena to get married to some body else. She has asked him as to why he is cheating her by loving her. Thereafter the accused by saying that the marriage would took place only if she is alive and threatened to finish her and threw acid on her face. After hearing the cries Haseena-sister-in-law of the deceased came running there. Her face, eyes and parts of the body were burnt with acid. The accused also threw acid inside her mouth and she has gulped part of the acid. He has thrown the acid on Haseena also and Haseena also got injuries on her person. Thereafter she was removed to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. The said statement first given by her in the presence of the doctor. Haseena was also present when the statement was given so also her brother. She has requested to take action against Kaleem Pasha who has thrown acid on her. The said statement was recorded in the burn ward of the hospital at about 2.30 p.m. and the LTM has been obtained from Zareena-the injured. On the basis of this statement, the police have registered a case in Cr. No. 132/2002 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the injured Zareena succumbed to the injuries on 27.12.2002 where after the offence was changed to one under Section 302 IPC. 6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1-Haseena who is the sister-in-law of the deceased. She has identified the accused and has stated that Zareena was not married and she was residing in their house. They were searching for a boy for Zareena. The accused was also not married. She was not aware whether the deceased was loving the accused. She has identified the accused and has stated that Zareena was not married and she was residing in their house. They were searching for a boy for Zareena. The accused was also not married. She was not aware whether the deceased was loving the accused. Though many boys had come to see Zareena, her engagement was not settled, the accused and his mother were coming to their house often. She has seen that the accused and deceased were talking to each other on friendly terms. About four months prior to the incident, the accused has requested her that Zareena be given in marriage to him, for which she has stated that he should get his mother and brothers. But he has not done so for marriage negotiations nor he has proposed again about his marriage with Zareena. She has further stated that at about 11.30 a.m. on the date of the incident she heard noise from the house, when she was in the shop near the house, which was 200 ft. away from her house. When she came near the house, people had already gathered there and Zareena was pouring water on the body. When she questioned, she informed that she was suffering from burning and did not disclose anything else. Her husband had gone to welding work and when he came she informed the said fact. Thereafter the injured was sent to K.R. Hospital. She has stated in the Court that the doctor has not questioned her regarding the injuries on Zareena and she does not know as to the cause of the injuries on her sister-in-law-Zareena. P.W. 1 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, so for as the involvement of the accused is concerned. P.W. 2-Vasim Pasha-a boy aged about 11 years has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 3-Shafi Pasha, P.W. 4-Yasin Sharif and P.W. 5-Babu who were supposed to be the eye-witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 6-Syed Kalimulla is the owner of the house where the accused was residing as a tenant. However, he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Photos at Ex. P15(a) to Ex. P18(a) are produced regarding the scene of offence. 7. P.W. 7-Dr. P.W. 6-Syed Kalimulla is the owner of the house where the accused was residing as a tenant. However, he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Photos at Ex. P15(a) to Ex. P18(a) are produced regarding the scene of offence. 7. P.W. 7-Dr. Latha has stated before the Court that on 22.11.2002 at about 8.25 p.m. one Haseena was brought to the K.R. Hospital where she was working as a Senior Specialist. On examinations she found there were burn injuries present on the left cheek of said Haseena. She has given first aid to said Haseena and sent her to the burns ward. Thereafter she has issued wound certificate as per Ex. P21 stating that the injuries were grievous in nature. She has brought the accident register-Ex. P22, which is in her handwriting. She has further stated that on 24.11.2002 at 1 p.m. one Kaleem Pasha-accused has been examined by her who had injuries on his person said to be due to acid burn caused on 22.11.2002 at 12 noon inside Zareena’s house. P.W. 7 has identified the accused before the Court as the one whom she has examined on that day. The accused had three burn injuries on his person as follows: (1) Burns on the right fore-arm dorsal, ventral and sides and dorsum of the right hand. (2) Burns on the left fore-arm dorsal, ventral and sides and dorsum of the left hand. (3) Burns over the face and right side of the neck. 8. The accused had given the following history to the doctor-P.W. 7 that he threw acid to Zareena on 22.11.2002 at 12 noon inside Zareena’s house in a plastic container and when he withdraw his hands acid spilt over his hands and face and sustained burns. Said history given by the accused is entered in Ex. P24, which is in the handwriting of P.W. 7. She has further opined that the injuries on Haseena and Kalimulla were caused due to acid. 9. P.W. 8-Dr. H.N. Dinesh has stated that the deceased Zareena was admitted in burns ward of K.R. Hospital where he was working as Lecturer in Plastic Surgery Department. He has certified that the deceased was in a position to give statement. He has stated that the PSI was questioning the injured and another police was writing the statement of the injured. He was also present at that time. He has certified that the deceased was in a position to give statement. He has stated that the PSI was questioning the injured and another police was writing the statement of the injured. He was also present at that time. The brother of the injured was also present. The injured did not know Kannada. However, she understood Kannada. She was giving statement in Urdu language. Her brother was translating it in Kannada. He knows Urdu to some extent. He was present until the statement of the injured was completed and after completion of the statement he has signed as per Ex. P9 and also identified the LTM of the deceased. 10. P.W. 8 has further stated that, when he questioned the deceased, she has stated that herself and Kaleem Pasha were staying in the opposite houses were loving each other. Since the people of the house of the boy were not agreeing for the marriage, the said boy poured acid on her and the said incident has happened inside the house of the injured. 11. P.W. 9 has stated that he has conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Zareena on 27.12.2002 and has opined that the death was due to respiratory failure as a result of septicemia complications of the burns sustained. The burns sustained appears to have been caused by strong acid because of sloughing and eschar formation. He has issued Ex. P25-P.M. report. 12. P.W. 10-Dr. Mohan is another doctor who is working as a lecturer in Plastic Surgery Department in Government Medical College, Mysore. He has verified the case sheet pertaining to the deceased Zareena and has given opinion that both the persons, i.e., Zareena and Kaleem Pasha have sustained burn injuries by some kind of acid as per Ex. P26 which is in his handwriting. 13. P.W. 11-Babu is the signatory to Ex. P14-mahazar in which clothes-M.O. 6 and M.O. 7 worn by the accused were seized by the police. 14. P.W. 12-Adil Pasha has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 13-Habeeb is the signatory to Ex. P1 which is a mahazar regarding the scene of occurrence namely the house of Fairoze. He has also identified M.O. 1-plastic mug, M.O. 2 to M.O. 4 which were seized from the scene. 15. P.W. 14-Firoz is the brother of the deceased. P.W. 13-Habeeb is the signatory to Ex. P1 which is a mahazar regarding the scene of occurrence namely the house of Fairoze. He has also identified M.O. 1-plastic mug, M.O. 2 to M.O. 4 which were seized from the scene. 15. P.W. 14-Firoz is the brother of the deceased. He has stated that on the date of the incident, on coming to know of the burn injuries on his sister, he came from the workshop where he was working and went to the hospital. He has stated that his wife Haseena was standing outside. He has further stated that the police had come to the hospital to record the statement of his sister. However, he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 16. P.W. 15-Veerabhadraiah is the PSI, Mandi Police Station, Mysore. He has visited the hospital on 22.11.2002 at about 12.30 p.m. on receipt of telephonic message and went to the hospital requested the doctor to state regarding the condition of the injured-patient. P.W. 8-Dr. Dinesh was also present alongwith him. Doctor has opined that the patient was in a position to give statement. The patient was talking in Urdu. The said statement was recorded by P.W. 14 and was translated into Kannada as per Ex. P9. He has stated that doctor has certified the condition of the patient as fit to give statement and thereafter, he has taken the statement with the help of his writer Babulokanath. 17. P.W. 16-Suresh is the Inspector of Police at Mandi Police Station during the relevant period. He has investigated into the case, arrested the accused, seized the clothes worn by him at the time of offence, recorded the statement as per Ex. P20, found injuries on the accused and he sent the accused to K.R. Hospital for treatment. He has further stated that the accused has shown the shop from where acid was purchased by him and mahazar has been drawn in the shop, viz., Fiaz Ahmed and Sons, Dyes and Chemicals, owned by one Naveed Khan. The said shop is by the side of another shop named Best Chemicals owned by one Zameer. He has seized the licenses of both the shops as per Exs. P31 and 32 respectively. The said shop is by the side of another shop named Best Chemicals owned by one Zameer. He has seized the licenses of both the shops as per Exs. P31 and 32 respectively. On receipt of opinion from the doctor regarding the injuries on the accused as well as on the deceased and after completion of the investigation he has filed the charge sheet against the accused in this case. 18. P.W. 17-Muzammil Sharief has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 18-Nanaiah is the Police Constable who had transmitted the FIR to the Court on 22.11.2002. 19. The accused has examined one Akhtar as D.W. 1. She has stated that on 22.11.2002 at about 12.00 clock, she came to her mother’s house. She knows the accused before the Court. She has stated that the accused was alongwith her at the time of the incident. At that time, some women was screaming from inside a nearby house. Immediately the accused went inside the house. She has stated that on hearing the screaming of the woman, the accused went inside the house and she also followed him. She has further stated that at that time, the accused was hugged by the deceased, viz., Zareena. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to the hospital. 20. It is from the evidence of these witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has acquitted the accused. 21. Heard Sri G. Bhavani Singh, learned SPP for the State and Sri P. Nataraju, learned counsel for the respondent. 22. It is seen that the case of the prosecution depends on the extra-judicial confession/statement made by the accused to the Doctor-P.W. 7-Dr. Latha when produced before her. The accused has stated that when he threw acid on Zareena on 22.11.2002 at 12 noon inside Zareena’s house and when he withdrew his hands the acid spilt over his hands and thus sustained burns. This statement of the accused according to the learned Sessions Judge is hit by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned SPP submits that the statement thus given by the accused form two parts. One is inculpatory which is regarding his action against the deceased. This statement of the accused according to the learned Sessions Judge is hit by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned SPP submits that the statement thus given by the accused form two parts. One is inculpatory which is regarding his action against the deceased. The second part does not amount to confession but it amounts to admission of fact, i.e., on the date of incident he was found alongwith the injured. The learned SPP submits that the accused has sustained burn injuries so also the deceased has sustained burn injuries and according to the opinion of the doctor both the injuries were caused by the same type of acid. He further submits that the evidence of the doctor-P.W. 7 if read with the statement given by the accused under Section 313 indicates that the accused was present at the time when the injured has sustained burn injuries by acid. To question No. 36 in 313 Cr.P.C. statement the accused has admitted his presence in the house by saying that “I went inside the house, at that time, Zareena hugged me”. This statement of the accused clearly indicates that he was present at the time when injured has sustained injuries. The accused has got examined D.W. 1-Smt. Akhtar. Even in the statement of Smt. Akhtar, she has stated that the accused went inside the house. Under the circumstances the learned SPP submits that the case of the prosecution has been proved by preponderance of evidence on record. Therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted. 23. Sri Nataraju on the other hand submits that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant interference on the ground that the only eye-witness P.W. 1-Haseena has turned hostile though she has sustained injuries. So far as translation from Urdu to Kannada is concerned, there is no support from Fiaz-P.W. 14 since he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Under the circumstances, the version in Ex. P9, so called dying declaration cannot be believed as a gospel truth. 24. After having gone through the evidence on record and also the submissions made by either side, it is seen that the dying declaration of the deceased at Ex. P9 clearly and squarely indicts the accused of the commission of the offence and causing injuries on the deceased by acid burns. 24. After having gone through the evidence on record and also the submissions made by either side, it is seen that the dying declaration of the deceased at Ex. P9 clearly and squarely indicts the accused of the commission of the offence and causing injuries on the deceased by acid burns. This fact is corroborated by evidence of the doctor-P.W. 7 and also the evidence of the other witnesses. The statement of the accused given to the doctor P.W. 7 clearly establishes that he was present at the time when the deceased had sustained injuries. Therefore, it is further observed that P.W. 8-Dr. Dinesh though he was not fully aware of the Urdu language has stated in the chief-examination itself that he is able to understand Urdu language and in his presence the deceased had stated the version in Ex. P9 which has been translated by P.W. 14 to the police. 25. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the version in Ex. P9 regarding the accused pouring acid on the deceased is truthful and conviction can be based from the evidence of P.W. 8-Dr. Dinesh. However, there is also further corroboration to the version of P.W. 8 in the form of statement of P.W. 7-Dr. Latha who has stated that when the accused was produced before her, he has stated the cause for the injuries on him as a result of pouring of acid on the injured and as a result of spilting of the said acid which has caused burns on him. Though the version of causing injuries on the deceased and his presence at the time of incident is not admissible as it is hit by Sec. 27of Evidence Act, we hold that, his statement is relevant and admissible in so far as it finds corroboration regarding the prosecution case that accused was present at the time of incident. 26. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions (1) Kanda Padayachi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1972 SC 66 ; (2) State of Kerala vs. Ammini and others, reported in AIR 1998 Ker. 1 . 26. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions (1) Kanda Padayachi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1972 SC 66 ; (2) State of Kerala vs. Ammini and others, reported in AIR 1998 Ker. 1 . The said decisions clearly indicate that the statement other than the one in the nature of confession can be taken into account by the Court in a proceeding of this nature, therefore, the statement of the accused to the doctor regarding the cause of the injuries on the accused is taken into account for purpose of corroboration of the evidence of the injured/deceased. 27. In view of the above circumstances, on a re-appreciation of the evidence and other materials on record and after giving our anxious thought to the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we hold that, the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for having caused the death of Zareena. However, the prosecution has not proved the case of having caused injuries on P.W. 1-Haseena in view of the fact that she has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. In the result the following order is made. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment of acquittal passed against the accused is set aside. The accused is convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to further S.I. for one year. The accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the above sentence, failing which the trial Court is directed to execute the sentence as imposed above.