JUDGMENT A. P. LAVANDE, J. By this appeal the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Special Court, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 197/96 convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year on the first count and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months on the second count. 2. The facts, as unfolded during the trial, are as follows: Deceased Jyoti daughter of Taibai Pandurang Zade (P.W.2) married the accused about eight years prior to the incident. At the time of the marriage the accused was serving in M.I.D.C. at Nagpur. Thereafter, they shifted to Ralegaon and started residing in the house of Taibai Zade (P.W.2). Taibai (P.W.2) arranged for a pan thela for the accused and accused started running the same at Ralegaon. After a year or two of the marriage the accused became addicted to liquor and he used to come home drunk and ill-treat Jyoti. 3. On 19.6.1996 at about 10.00 p.m. accused came to his house drunk. Jyoti served food to him. He abused Jyoti for not cooking fish. A lamp made up of glass bottle was burning at that time. The accused threw the burning lamp on Jyoti on account of which her clothes caught fire. She raised cries and in burning condition Jyoti ran towards the house of her mother which was nearby. She fell down on the way. The neighbours Tanbaji Lakde (P.W.3) and Sadanand Dhagle (P.W.4) extinguished fire on the person of Jyoti with the help of quilt. Several persons assembled there. Then Jyoti was removed to Ralegaon Public Health Centre from where she was referred to Civil Hospital, Yavatmal. 4. The medical officer at the Hospital sent an intimation of admission of a burn case to Yavatmal Police Station. On receipt of the memo at about 2.30 a.m., a police man was deputed to take the memo to the Executive Magistrate for recording dying declaration of Jyoti. The police man went to the house of the then Executive Magistrate Rajendra Balwant Deshmukh (P.W.l). On receipt of the memo at about 2.30 a.m., a police man was deputed to take the memo to the Executive Magistrate for recording dying declaration of Jyoti. The police man went to the house of the then Executive Magistrate Rajendra Balwant Deshmukh (P.W.l). Within few minutes, Rajendra Deshmukh (P.W.I) along with police man reached the Government Hospital, Yavatmal. Dr. Sanjay Bharti(P.W. 9) was on, duty at that time as Medical Officer. After Doctor Sanjay Bharti certified that Jyoti was conscious and fit to give statement, the Executive Magistrate Rajendra Deshmukh (P.W.l) recorded dying declaration (Exh.23) of Jyoti in question and answer form in presence of Dr. Bharti who was present throughout recording of the dying declaration. The dying declaration (Exh.23) was handed over to the police man for onward transmission to Police Station. On receipt of the dying declaration (Exh.23) the Incharge of Police Station forwarded the case diary, dying declaration etc. to Ralegaon Police Station as the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of said Police Station. On the basis of the dying declaration (Exh.23) Crime No.445/96 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. Thereafter, investigation was taken up. On 20.6. 1996 spet panchanama (Exh.31) was conducted. Spot was shown by Tanbaji Lakde (P.W.3) who had extinguished the fire. From the spot earth mixed with kerosene oil, simple earth, lamp made of glass bottle and a tin container having five litre kerosene were seized pursuant to the seizure memo (Exh.32). The accused was arrested on 20th June, 1996. C.P.I.,Chandrakant Sugadhi (P.W.13) recorded the dying declaration (Exh.56) after verifying from Dr. Vijay Pote (P.W.8) that Jyoti was fit to make statement. Thereafter, statement of Taibai Zade (P.W.2) the mother of the victim and Sadanand Tulshiram Dhaglc (P.WA) were recorded. 5. On 21 .6.1996 partly burnt clothes of Jyoti were produced by Sadanand Dhagle. The said clothes were seized under the seizure memo (Exh.34). All the articles seized were sent for analyses to the Chemical Analyser, Nagpur. Jyoti was discharged from the Hospital on 14.9.1996. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kelapur on 30.9.1996 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. All the articles seized were sent for analyses to the Chemical Analyser, Nagpur. Jyoti was discharged from the Hospital on 14.9.1996. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kelapur on 30.9.1996 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Yavatmal. 6. During the pendency of the Sessions Trial No. 197/96, on 15.1.1997 Jyoti succumbed to death while she was under medical treatment at the house of her mother. After receipt of the information about the death of Jyoti spot panchanama was conducted by Head Constable Balbhim. Inquest Panchanama was also prepared and dead body was sent for post-mortem to the Hospital which was conducted by Dr. Satishkumar Gupta (P.W.12). Thereafter supplementary charge sheet under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was submitted before the committal Court. Same was forwarded to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. The charge was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The defence of the accused was of total denial. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused, inter alia, stated that at the time of the incident Jyoti was residing at the house of her mother. He further stated that after coming to know about the incident in which Jyoti had suffered burn injuries he went to Ralegaon Police Station and asked the police to inquire. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined in all thirteen witnesses and produced several documents prepared during investigation to prove the offences against the accused. The learned trial Judge upon appreciation of the evidence held the accused guilty for both the offences for which he was charged and convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as above. 7. Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused in support of the appeal urged the following grounds. a) Dying declaration (Exh.23) recorded by the Executive Magistrate Rajendra Deshmukh (P.W.I) does not inspire confidence and as such could not have been relied upon by the learned trial Judge. b) Dying declaration (Exh.56) recorded by C.P.C., Chandrakant Sugandhi has not been proved inasmuch as he has not deposed as to the contents of the dying declaration and as such same cannot be relied upon. b) Dying declaration (Exh.56) recorded by C.P.C., Chandrakant Sugandhi has not been proved inasmuch as he has not deposed as to the contents of the dying declaration and as such same cannot be relied upon. c) The oral dying declarations made to Taibai Zade (P.W.2) and Sadanand Dhagle (P.W.4) do not inspire confidence. d) The prosecution has not led cogent evidence to prove that the burn injuries alleged to have been suffered by the deceased on account of throwing of burning lamp on deceased had caused the death of Jyoti inasmuch as Jyoti was discharged from the hospital on 14.9.1996 and she expired at the house of her mother on 15.1.1997. e) The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that injuries suffered by deceased Jyoti pursuant to the act of the accused were sufficient to cause her death. f) The defence of the accused that Jyoti suffered burn injuries at the house of her mother is probabalised by the spot panchanama (Exh.31). g) The prosecution evidence does not establish that accused committed offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder. h) The prosecution evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused for the commission of the offences for which he has been convicted and sentenced. i) The prosecution has not led any cogent evidence to prove the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. In the alternative, Mr. Daga submittea that even if the prosecution case is accepted in toto at the most offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused and having regard to the fact that the accused has undergone imprisonment for a period of about one year and nine months, in the event of his conviction for the said offence the accused be awarded the sentence already undergone. Mr. Daga further submitted that the appellant has to look after his two children and as such lenient view be taken in so far as sentence is concerned. In support of his submissions, Mr. Daga relied upon on the following Judgments. i) Dev Raj Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 950. ii) Dashrath Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2004)7 Supreme Court Cases, 408 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2811 (S.C.)]. iii) Bhimrao Harbaji Gedam Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001(1) Mh. L.J. 550 : [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 113]. Daga relied upon on the following Judgments. i) Dev Raj Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 950. ii) Dashrath Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2004)7 Supreme Court Cases, 408 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2811 (S.C.)]. iii) Bhimrao Harbaji Gedam Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001(1) Mh. L.J. 550 : [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 113]. iv) Deorao Sonbaji Bhalerao & another Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1921. 8. Per contra. Mrs. K. S. Joshi, learned APP submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish both the offences against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the alternative. Mrs. Joshi submitted that in any case the offence under Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused in as much as the intention of the accused to cause injuries to deceased Jyoti which were likely to cause her death has been established by the prosecution. According to Mrs. Joshi. the act of the accused of throwing burning lamp on deceased Jyoti who at the relevant time was wearing polyster saree coupled with the fact that the accused did not take Jyoti to the hospital after she suffered burn injuries clearly proves that the accused had intention to cause injuries to Jyoti which were likely to cause her death. According to Mrs. Joshi. although deceased was discharged from the hospital on 14.9.1996 and she expired on 15.1.1997 the medical evidence tendered by the prosecution clearly proves that the accused intended to cause injuries to deceased which were likely to cause her death. The learned APP. therefore. submitted that the offence punishable under Section 304(1) is clearly made out against the accused. The learned APP further submitted that the oral dying declarations made by deceased to her mother Taibai Zade (P.W.2) and Sadanand Dhagle (P.W.4) inspire confidence and there is absolutely no reason forthcoming as to why the same should not be accepted. She further submitted that the spot panchanama clearly proves that the incident had occurred in the house which was occupied by the accused and deceased Jyoti which was in the close vicinity of another house of Taibai, the mother of the deceased. She further submitted that the spot panchanama clearly proves that the incident had occurred in the house which was occupied by the accused and deceased Jyoti which was in the close vicinity of another house of Taibai, the mother of the deceased. She further submitted that the defence taken by the accused that deceased died on account of burn injuries suffered at the house of her mother and the statement made that he went to the police station to lodge report to inquire into the incident clearly proves that he had taken false defence which is additional factor to prove complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime. In support of her submissions Mrs. Joshi relied upon the following Judgments: i) Fattesingh Panch am Ghodke Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 1128. ji) Subhash Nagorao Junghare Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1651. iii) Gopalrao Champatrao Dole Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 ALL MR (Cri) N.O.C.63 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the Judgments relied upon. 10. We shall first deal with the written dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution. The first dying declaration (Exh.23) was recorded by the Executive Magistrate Rajendra Deshmukh (P.W.!) who at the relevant time was working as Naib Tahsildar at Yavatmal. His evidence discloses that pursuant to the memo received by him at 2.35 a.m. On 19.6.1996 from the police he came to the Government Hospital at Yavatmal. After getting the certificate from the doctor present there that patient Jyoti Eknokar was fit to give her statement he recorded her statement after verifying from her, her name, occupation, address etc. in question and answer form. His evidence discloses that Jyoti had told him that her husband had thrown burning lamp on her on account of which she sustained burns. The same further discloses that on that day at about 10.00 p.m. her husband came home after consuming liquor and he threw burning lamp on her as she had not cooked fish. He further stated that she had told him that at the relevant time she and her husband were present and her two children were sleeping. He further deposed that after the dying declaration was recorded same was read over to her and he had taken her right hand thumb impression on the dying declaration. He further stated that she had told him that at the relevant time she and her husband were present and her two children were sleeping. He further deposed that after the dying declaration was recorded same was read over to her and he had taken her right hand thumb impression on the dying declaration. Doctor who was present at the time of recording of the dying declaration had certified that at the time of recording of dying declaration the patient was conscious. He identified his signature and that of Jyoti on the dying declaration Exh.23. In the cross examination he stated that he had not inquired as to whether some treatment was given to the patient or not. He further stated that when he reached there she was shouting as 'Ai ga Ai ga'. He did not remember whether saline was administered to her or not. He had recorded the dying declaration in question and answer form. He denied the suggestion that the deceased had not given answer to question nos.6 and 7 as recorded by him and he had recorded dying declaration as per the say of the patient. He also denied that at that time deceased was not fit to give any statement. 11. The evidence of this witness stands corroborated by the dying declaration (Exh.23) has not been shaken in the cross-examination and there is absolutely no reason forthcoming as to why this witness should depose against the accused. The evidence of this witness which stands corroborated by the spot panchanama (Exh.31) which has been duly proved by Abhiman Shinde (P.W.5) clearly proves that deceased Jyoti suffered bum injuries on account of throwing of burning lamp on her by the accused on 19.6.1996 at about 10.00 p.m. when the accused got enraged since the deceased had not cooked fish. 12. The evidence of Dr. Sanjay Bharti (P.W.9) also corroborates the version of Rajendra Deshmukh (P.W.1). His evidence clearly establishes that he had given certificate regarding fitness before and after Rajendra Deshmukh (P.W.1) recorded dying declaration of Jyoti. The evidence of this witness which has absolutely not been shaken in the cross examination clearly proves that at the time of recording of the dying declaration of Jyoti by Rajendra Deshmukh (P.W.1) the patient was physically and mentally fit to give statement. 13. Insofar as dying declaration (Exh.56) recorded by C.P.I., Chandrakant Sugandhi (P.W.l3) is concerned, Mr. The evidence of this witness which has absolutely not been shaken in the cross examination clearly proves that at the time of recording of the dying declaration of Jyoti by Rajendra Deshmukh (P.W.1) the patient was physically and mentally fit to give statement. 13. Insofar as dying declaration (Exh.56) recorded by C.P.I., Chandrakant Sugandhi (P.W.l3) is concerned, Mr. Daga is right in contending that the same has not been proved as required in terms of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Deorao Bhalerao, [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1921(supra)]. Although the witness produced the dying declaration (Exh.56) and that he has recorded statement of Jyoti after doctor had issued certificate that Jyoti was conscious as per her say, the fact remains that he did not depose as to the contents of the dying declaration (Exh.56). In the case of Deorao (supra) the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (A.P.Lavande, J) was a party has held that mere production of dying declaration is not sufficient to prove the same and the person who records dying declaration has to depose as to the contents of the same. Admittedly, in the present case the witness has not deposed as to the contents of the dying declaration (Exh.56) and as such same is of no help to the prosecution. The evidence of Doctor Vijay Pote (P.W.8) who gave certificate that deceased Jyoti was physically and mentally fit to give her statement is not of any help to the prosecution since the prosecution has not been able to prove the dying declaration (Exh.56) recorded by C.P.I., Chandrakant Sugandhi (P.W.13). In the absence of any substantive evidence coming from C.P.I., Chandrakant Sugandhi (P.W.i3) , evidence of this witness is of no help to the prosecution. 14. The prosecution also relied upon two oral dying declarations made by deceased Jyoti to her mother Taibai (P.W.2) and her cousin Sadanand Dhagle (P.W.4). The evidence of Taibai (P.W.2) discloses that after one year of marriage accused and deceased came to reside at Ralegaon and they were staying in her old house. The accused was running a panthela for which she had incurred expenses. At the relevant time she was residing in her own house very close to the house in which accused and deceased were staying. The accused was running a panthela for which she had incurred expenses. At the relevant time she was residing in her own house very close to the house in which accused and deceased were staying. Her evidence further discloses that initially for two years the couple stayed happily but thereafter the accused started consuming liquor and beating Jyoti. She further deposed that on 19.6.1996 at about 10.00 p.m. she and Sadanand DhagIe (P.W.4) were taking meals at her house. She came out of the house on hearing cries. She saw Jyoti burning near the tap in front of the house and at that time Jyoti was sitting. Soon thereafter Chandrabhan Lakde came there and extinguished fire with a quilt. She inquired from Jyoti to which she told her that she had not cooked fish and, therefore, her husband had thrown burning lamp on her. She was taken to the Public Health Centre, Malegaon. Since the doctor was not available there compounder administered medicine on her and thereafter she was brought to Yavatmal. In cross examination the witness stated that on hearing cries she came out and saw Jyoti sitting at the distance of 20 ft. from her house near the tap. On the next day in the morning when they were, at Yavatmal Hospital the accused lodged report alleging that her mother and brother had set her on fire. She stated that Suresh was not present at the place where Jyoti was sitting. The witness volunteers that he was at the house standing on a stone. The witness denied the suggestion that Jyoti had never stated to her that as she had not cooked fish her husband had thrown the burning lamp on her. She denied the suggestion that Jyoti had sustained burns at their house and that Suresh had himself incurred expenditure for pan thela or that accused was giving income of pan thela to her and, therefore, she had kept Jyoti with her at that time. She further denied that in order to defend herself she made a false allegation that lamp was thrown away on her daughter. 15. The evidence of this witness stands substantially corroborated on material aspects by the evidence of Sadanand Dhagle (P.W.4) who has also deposed that on 19.6.1996 at about 9 to 10 p.m.. She further denied that in order to defend herself she made a false allegation that lamp was thrown away on her daughter. 15. The evidence of this witness stands substantially corroborated on material aspects by the evidence of Sadanand Dhagle (P.W.4) who has also deposed that on 19.6.1996 at about 9 to 10 p.m.. He was taking meals along with her maternal aunt Taibai Zade (P. W.l) and her two sons and on hearing cries she came out and saw Jyoti was burning. He covered her with a quilt. Tanbaji Lakde came there with quilt. Thereafter mother of Jyoti also followed him. Thereafter about 56 persons removed Jyoti to Public Health Centre, Ralegaon. He asked Jyoti in the hospital as to how she sustained burns to which she had told him that she had not cooked fish and, therefore, accused threw burning lamp on her and she sustained burns. In the cross-examination of this witness nothing tangible has been brought on record to discredit her version. This witness also is a natural witness since at the relevant time he was taking dinner in the house of his aunt Taibai (P.W.l). 16. Thus, the evidence of the above two witnesses which has not been shaken in the cross-examination and inspires confidence. clearly proves that deceased made oral dying declarations to both of them implicating the accused as the person responsible for causing burns to Jyoti by throwing burning lamp. There is absolutely no reasons forthcoming as to why both these witnesses though related should be disbelieved. 17. Thus, the written dying declarations recorded by Rajendra Deshmukh (P.W.l) stand corroborated by two oral dying declarations made to Taibai Zade (P.W.2) and Sadanand Dhagle (P.W.4). The written dying declarations and two oral dying declarations also stand corroborated by the evidence of Tanbaji Lakde (P.W.3) who at t'1e relevant time was residing in the neighborhood of the accused. His evidence clearly establishes that at the time of the incident at about 10.00 p. m. Jyoti came out of the house of accused and rushed towards the well and he picked up the quilt which was on the cot on which he was sitting and extinguished the fire. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish that it was the accused who after having come drunk to his house threw burning lamp on his wife Jyoti causing her burns. 18. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish that it was the accused who after having come drunk to his house threw burning lamp on his wife Jyoti causing her burns. 18. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the accused intended to cause injuries to his wife Jyoti which were sufficient to cause her death and whether the prosecution has been able to establish that deceased Jyoti had died on account of burn Injuries. 19. In this connection the only evidence which comes from the prosecution is that of Dr. Satishkumar Gupta (P. W.12) who had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Jyoti on 15.1.1997. Dr. Satishkumar Gupta (P.W.12) deposed that on 15.1.1997 he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Jyoti and on examination of skin he found infected burns at places healed hypo and hyper pigmented patches. Scaring and contraction were present. He found about 62% injuries on the body. He gave percentage of burns on different parts. He further deposed all the injuries were ante mortem. On internal examination he found brain Meninges and Brain-NAD Subarchnoid multiple minute haemorrhagic spots. At the time of examination of Thorax he found: a) Walls. ribs. cartilages :Burn infected, pus f1ucks + b) pleura:- Congested, bs thickended effusion + Yellowish turbid about 330 m., c) Larynx, Trachea and Bronchi Secretions ++ pale d) Right lung:- Congested, upper lobe shows tuberculous, cavity secondary Infection + e) Left lung:- Congested. lower lobe consolidated Pus ++ f) Pericardium:- Congested, cavity Yellowish turbid fluid + about 100 ml.. On examination of abdomen he found that the organs were congested and spleen moderately enlarged soft and congested. Kidneys were soft and congested. He opined the cause of death was lardaceous. He stated that lardaceous means disease of the internal organs resulting from suppurlative exhaustion. 62% ante mortem burn injuries were found and in the ordinary course of nature they were sufficient to cause death. He identified his signature and that of Doctor Batra on post morte (Exh.54) and confirmed its contents as Correct. In cross-examination he deposed that at the time of examination of right lung he had noticed that deceased was suffering from T.B. but he could not say the period for which she was suffering from T.B.. He further deposed that the cavity was found because of infection which could be of any disease. In cross-examination he deposed that at the time of examination of right lung he had noticed that deceased was suffering from T.B. but he could not say the period for which she was suffering from T.B.. He further deposed that the cavity was found because of infection which could be of any disease. The left lung was also found having infection. He stated that pluera is covering of lungs. If there is increase in infection in lungs then pus may come out on pluera. In case of T.B. infections subarchnoid multiple minute haemorrhagic spots are possible. He further deposed that in case of T.B. infections and brain involvement death was possible. Burn injuries shown in column no.17 of post-mortem report had shown inclination towards healing.. In the absence of other evidence having been led by the prosecution regarding the treatment meted out to deceased Jyoti in the hospital during her stay or during the time she was taking treatment at the house of her mother after she was discharged from the hospital, we are left with the only evidence of this witness who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Jyoti. The evidence of this witness discloses that he found that deceased was suffering from T.B. and in case of T.B. infections and brain involvement the death was possible and further that burn injuries shown in column no. 17 of the post-mortem report had shown inclination towards healing. His evidence further discloses that according to the witness the deceased had died on account of 62% ante mortem burn injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As stated above. we have already held that the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused had thrown burning lamp on deceased Jyoti which resulted in causing burn injuries to her. The reason for throwing the burning lamp on deceased Jyoti was on account of the fact that deceased Jyoti had not cooked fish. Thus. the prosecution evidence itself suggests that accused had come drunk to his house and for a petty reason he threw burning lamp on deceased causing her burn injuries. 20. At this stage we shall deal with the authorities cited by both sides. In the case of Dev Raj (supra) relied upon by Mr. Daga. Thus. the prosecution evidence itself suggests that accused had come drunk to his house and for a petty reason he threw burning lamp on deceased causing her burn injuries. 20. At this stage we shall deal with the authorities cited by both sides. In the case of Dev Raj (supra) relied upon by Mr. Daga. the accused had caused gun shot injuries to the deccased on account of which deceased died about one and half month after the incident. In between he was operated. The deceased died on the day when right arm of the deceased was amputated. The Apex Court altered conviction from 302 to 326 of the Indian Penal Code holding that the death could not be said to be a direct result of injuries caused. In the case of Dashrath Singh, [2004 ALL MR (Cd) 2811 (S.C.)] (supra) the deceased died after a period of about 30 days of the assault by the accused on account of single blow with kanta on the head of the deceased. The Apex Court altered the conviction from 302 to 326 of the Indian Penal Code holding that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that eventual cause of death was only the injury caused by the accused. In the case of Bhimrao Gedam, [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 113] (supra) the Division Bench of this Court altered the conviction from 302 to 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code. In the said case the accused in the heat of passion after quarrel poured kerosene on the wife but soon thereafter tried to extinguish fire and in the process suffered burn injuries. In the case of Fattesingh, [2002 ALL MR (Cri) 1128] (supra) relied upon by Mrs. Joshi, learned APP the victim had suffered 56 % burn injuries and died due to septicaemia on account of burns of total body surface area after the period of 5 days. The Division Bench held that the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was clearly made out against the accused. In the case of Subhash Nagorao Junghare, [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1651] (supra) another Division Bench of this court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 to 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench held that the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was clearly made out against the accused. In the case of Subhash Nagorao Junghare, [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1651] (supra) another Division Bench of this court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 to 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code. In the said case the deceased who was set ablaze by the accused under the influence of liquor by pouring kerosene and setting ablaze died after the period of 44 days in the hospital. The deceased had suffered 45% burn injuries. In the case of Gopalrao Dole, [2006 ALL MR (Cri) N.O.C.63] (supra) the deceased was died after two months on account septicaemia the Division Bench altered the conviction from 302 to 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code. 21. C.P.I., Chandrakant Sugandhi (P.W.13) in his cross-examination admitted that deceased Jyoti was discharged from the hospital on 14.9.1996 and after her discharge from the hospital she was residing in the house of her mother at Ralegaon. He further admitted that he had not conducted any sort of investigation in respect of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, the prosecution evidence itself discloses that except for the evidence of Doctor Satishkumar Gupta (P.W.12) and post-mortem report (Exh.54) there is no other evidence forthcoming as to what sort of treatment was given to the deceased in the hospital. The prosecution has also not led any evidence as to what treatment was given to deceased after she was discharged from the hospital till her death when she was residing with her mother at Ralegaon. In view of this factual position, we find it extremely difficult to place implicit reliance upon the evidence of Dr. Satishkumar Gupta (P. W .12) to hold that the only cause of death of Jyoti was burn injuries suffered by her. In order to establish the offence under Section 302 or 304 (I) or (II) of the Indian Penal Code it is necessary for the prosecution to establish by leading cogent evidence that the deceased died on account of the injuries caused to him/her by the accused. In order to establish the offence under Section 302 or 304 (I) or (II) of the Indian Penal Code it is necessary for the prosecution to establish by leading cogent evidence that the deceased died on account of the injuries caused to him/her by the accused. In the present case, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the accused either under Section 302 or 304 of the Indian Penal Code was required to lead evidence that deceased Jyoti had died on 15.1.1997 only on account of the burn injuries suffered by her on 19.6.1996. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has not led any such evidence. We are. therefore, unable to uphold the submission of Mrs. Joshi that in the present case offence punishable under Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused. 22. The next question which arises for consideration is as to what offence is made out against the accused. The prosecution evidence which we have referred to above clearly establishes that deceased Jyoti was in hospital from 19.6.1996 to 14.9.1996. Section 320 clause eighthly of the Indian Penal Code reads thus: "320-Grievous hurt ~The following kinds of hurt only are designated as grievous: -Eighthly -- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits." Since the deceased Jyoti was in the hospital for the period of almost three months with severe burn injuries sustained by her on account of the act of the accused throwing burning lamp on her, in our opinion, the necessary and logical sequitur would be that during the said period she was unable to follow her ordinary pursuits. Moreover, the act of throwing the burning lamp on the person of the deceased the accused caused hurt to Jyoti which endangered her life. In our view, therefore, clause eighthly of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly attracted in the present case. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Daga that at the most offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused. Therefore, the appropriate conviction of the appellant accused would be under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 23. Insofar as the argument of Mrs. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Daga that at the most offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused. Therefore, the appropriate conviction of the appellant accused would be under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 23. Insofar as the argument of Mrs. Joshi, the learned APP that the conduct of the accused in not taking the deceased to the hospital discloses his intention to cause her death is concerned, we find it difficult to accept the same. The prosecution evidence itself suggests that at the relevant time the accused was drunk and for a petty reason he threw the burning lamp on the deceased. The mere fact that the accused did not take the deceased to the hospital by itself would not be sufficient to hold that he intended to cause her murder or to cause her injuries which were likely to cause her death. 24. Insofar as the false defence taken by the accused that the deceased sustained burn injuries at the house of her mother is concerned, it is well settled by the catena of the decisions of the Apex Court that false defence provides missing link in the chain of circumstances and' the prosecution has to prove the circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of offence which is sought to be proved against the accused. In the present case, we have already held that the prosecution evidence itself establishes that the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of Mrs. Joshi, the learned APP. 25. Insofar as the authorities relied upon by both the sides are concerned, the facts in all the cases were different. However, the ratio laid down in the case of Dashrath Singh, [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2811 (S.C.)] (supra) relied by Mr. Daga that in order to establish the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code the prosecution has to prove that the injuries caused by the accused were the cause of the death of the deceased is applicable in the present case. 26. Insofar as the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence .punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the only evidence led by the prosecution is that of Taibai (P.W.2) and Sadanand (P.W.4). 26. Insofar as the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence .punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the only evidence led by the prosecution is that of Taibai (P.W.2) and Sadanand (P.W.4). Their evidence only establishes that before the incident the accused used to come drunk and beat Jyoti. Even if this evidence is accepted, still the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are not made out by the prosecution. It can not be said that the conduct of the accused was such as was likely to drive Jyoti to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life, limb or health. Therefore, in our considered opinion. the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable in law and as such the accused is liable to be acquitted for the said offence. 27. In view of the above discussion the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences imposed upon him are quashed and set aside. The appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and considering the facts and circumstances of the case he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant/accused who is on bail is granted time of four weeks to surrender before the learned trial Judge. The bail bonds executed by the appellant/ accused shall stand discharged upon his surrender. In case he fails to surrender within four weeks the learned trial Judge shall take him in custody to serve the remaining sentence. The learned trial Judge will file compliance report regarding surrender of the accused within a period of four months. The appellant/accused is entitled to the set off the period of imprisonment undergone in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The order passed by the learned trial Court insofar disposal of the property is concerned is maintained. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.