JUDGMENT P.D. KODE, J.:- The judgment and order of conviction dated 2nd July, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon convicting the appellant for committing murder of his wife Maina by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her ablaze on 19th May, 2004 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1.000/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for 3 months is subject matter of present appeal. The appellant was charge sheeted by Police Station, Kalamb for commission of such an offence as a result of the investigation effected of FIR No.24/2004 registered on 19/0512004 at said Police Station on the basis of written report (Exh.8) given by Police Constable Sanjay Deshmukh (PW1) attached with said Police Station of Jalamb Police Station on the basis of dying declaration (Exh.23) of victim Maina collected by him from General Hospital, Khamgaon. 2. Such of the facts as found necessary for decision of present appeal are as under:- The elder daughter Maina of Arjun Raoji Dabhade (PW2) and Mankarna Dabhade (PW 3) married with the appellant at Shegaon on 4.4.2004 on the next day had returned from marital house at Kurkheda to her parental house at Chincholi and after staying for 4-5 days had returned to her marital house. She had again been to her parental house on 10.5.2004 and after staying till 17.5.2004 was sent back to Kurkhed along with the elder brother of the appellant. Maina during her said stay with parents had disclosed to them and her close relatives that appellant frequently used to tell her that he was disliking her and was not taking food prepared by her. The brother of appellant on 19.5.2004 at 6.30 hours apprised her parents by telephone that Maina was admitted at General Hospital, Khamgaon. Her parents and close relatives thereon had rushed to the said hospital on same day. Upon PW2 and PW3 asking Maina at the hospital as to how she had suffered burn injuries, Maina had disclosed that her husband-appellant had poured I erosene on her person at 5.00 hours and then had set her ablaze. Naib Tahsildar, Khamgaon Mr. Manishkumar Gaikwad (PW6) on 19.5.2004 during 7.37 to 8.07 hours in presence of Dr. Upon PW2 and PW3 asking Maina at the hospital as to how she had suffered burn injuries, Maina had disclosed that her husband-appellant had poured I erosene on her person at 5.00 hours and then had set her ablaze. Naib Tahsildar, Khamgaon Mr. Manishkumar Gaikwad (PW6) on 19.5.2004 during 7.37 to 8.07 hours in presence of Dr. Anil Naik (PW7) treating her had recorded dying declaration of Maina who was admitted at General Hospital, Khamgaon and sustained 66 % bum injuries, wherein she had disclosed that at her marital house at 5.00 hours on 19.5.2004 her husband-appellant had poured kerosene on her person and thereafter set her ablaze and upon herself raising, alarm, elder brother of her husband and his wife had brought her to the said hospital for medical treatment. 3. Upon report Exh.8 given by PW1. Mohd. Jahir Patel (PW8), PSG at 1alamb Police Station, had registered aforesaid crime for offence under Section 307 of IPC and effected investigation which included drawing of spot panchanama (Exh.26) and seizure of ash of burn clothes, sample of kerosene mixed earth and simple em1h, matchbox burn sticks and kerosene bottle etc. from the spot, and sending the same to Chemical Analyser, recording of statement of victim on 20.5.2004. After victim Maina succumbed to injuries sustained at 1.00 hours on 21.5.2004, the offence u/s 302 of IPC was added to the crime registered. The further investigation carried by him included drawing of inquest panchanama (Exh.21) on the same day and sending the corpse to the autopsy to General Hospital at Khamgaon at which the same was perfolll1ed by Dr. V.V. Jadhao (PW4) and Dr. S.K. Sirsat and collection of autopsy note (Exh.15) regarding the same and recording of the statements of the witnesses. After completion of further in vestigation in the Clime, PW8 had submitted the charge sheet for offence under Section 302 of IPC triable by the Court of Session against the appellant in the Court of the 1udicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon. 4. At the trial, the appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge Exh.4 framed against him on 10.03.2005 for offence of murder of his wife and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses i.e. in addition to the seven witnesses so far referred, Pralhad Vitthal Bhagwat (PW5) panch for inquest panchanama drawn of the corpse of the deceased. 5. The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses i.e. in addition to the seven witnesses so far referred, Pralhad Vitthal Bhagwat (PW5) panch for inquest panchanama drawn of the corpse of the deceased. The evidence of the said witnesses was adduced upon the matters/events to which they were party and/or role played by them during the investigation. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 was adduced particularly regarding the marriage of Maina, her relations with appellant and oral dying declaration made by Maina to them. The evidence of PW4 was also adduced regarding the cause of death given as a result of autopsy performed. PW6 had deposed regarding dying declaration Exh.23 recorded by him and PW7 regarding examination of Maina made by him prior to and after recording of dying declaration of Maina and the same being recorded in his presence and endorsement given by him regarding the same. 6. The defence of the appellant at the trial and particularly during the cross examination was of Maina having suffered burn injuries while cooking near hearth in her marital house at 5 am on 19.5.2004 and thus her death being accidental. However, during his examination made u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. the appellant had not stated accordingly and on the contrary he had claimed that all the witnesses had given false evidence against him and investigating officer demanded cash amount from him and as he was unable to pay the same, the investigating officer has falsely involved him in the case. However, no suggestion to the said effect has been found to have been given to such a effect to Investigating Officer PW8. 7. The trial court, after assessing the evidence adduced by the prosecution came to the conclusion of prosecution having established Maina having met with homicidal death and said death of Maina being caused by appellant by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her ablaze by lighting match-stick at 5.00 hours on 19.5.2004. While coming to such a conclusion, trial Court accepted the evidence of parents of Maina i.e. of PW2 and PW3 and pat1icularly Maina having made dying declaration to them implicating the appellant as an author of burn injury sustained by her when both of them had been to General Hospital, Khamgaon after receipt of an information of Maina being admitted at the said hospital. The trial Court also accepted the evidence of PW6 to the extent of Maina having made dying declaration recorded by him in the front page of Exh.23 implicating appellant but declined to accept evidence of PW6 that further matters recorded on the over leaf of Exh.23 being also dying declaration made by Maina to him. The trial Court for the reasons recorded in detail, declined to treat the said further matters recorded on rear side of Exh.23 as being true, voluntary dying declaration made by Maina to PW6. The trial Court came to such conclusion primarily on the basis of the evidence of PW7 Dr. Naik who had deposed that after proceeding of dying declaration was over, he had given endorsement/certificate on front page of Exh.23 and his evidence failed to disclose Maina having narrated the said further matter recorded on the rear side of Exh.23 and claimed to be further matters told by Maina to PW6. The trial Court also relied upon the evidence of PW 1 to some extent for coming to the conclusion of the said matters recorded on rear page of Exh.23 being not true voluntary declaration made by Maina. In consonance with the said conclusions arrived, the trial court concluded the appellant having committed offence u/s 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove. 8. Ms. Kalsi, the learned counsel for the appellant, urged that trial Court manifestly erred in accepting improbable claim staked by PW2 and PW3 of Maina having made oral dying declaration to them implicating the accused and having further erred in partly accepting Exh.23 being true voluntary dying declaration made by Maina to PW 6. It was urged that considering the conduct of PW2 and PW3 in not making a complaint/grievance earlier than recording of their statement by investigating officer indicates that they have staked false claim of their daughter having made dying declaration to them. It was urged that considering the evidence of PW6 as a whole trial Court was bound to reject his evidence either in entirety and was not entitled to accept part of dying declaration implicating the appellant and ignoring the remaining part absolving the appellant and in terms implying that she had sustained burn injuries due to the accident when she had been near her early in the morning. The learned counsel thus urged that the findings arrived by the trial Court are not in consonance with the evidence surfaced at the trial. It was urged that in view of the same, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court cannot be legally sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted by allowing his appeal. It was alternatively contended that since view beneficial to the appellant of Maina having sustained burn injuries accidentally from the later part of the dying declaration Exh. 23 recorded by PW6. the appellant deserves to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt rather than convicting and sentencing him. 9. Mr. T.A. Mirza. learned APP suppol1ed the judgment delivered by the trial court and urged that the prosecution by cogent and convincing evidence has established that the appellant had committed murder of his wife by pouring kerosene on her body and setting her on fire. It was urged that the said fact is duly established by oral dying declaration made by the deceased to her parents PW2 and PW3 and so also by the dying declaration recorded on front page of Exh.23 by PW6 and so also established by his evidence and so also that of PW7. It was urged that the trial Coul1 has rightly rejected the ful1her matters recorded on rear side of Exh. 23 for the cogent reasons given in the judgment. It is urged that the defence of Maina having died due to bum injuries sustained by her accidentally, is neither established by the defence nor found supported by the circumstances surfaced on the record as rightly pointed out by the trial Court. It is thus urged that trial Court having duly taken into consideration, all the matters surfaced from the evidence adduced at the trial and for weighty reasons having arrived at the finding of guilt of the appellant, no interference with the same is warranted and the appeal preferred be dismissed. 10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced and perused the record and the decision relied. 11. Apart from appellant having not seriously disputed fact of death of Maina having occurred due to 66 % burn injuries sustained by her the said facet being duly established by overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution i.e. of PW4 Dr. Jadhav who along with Dr. 11. Apart from appellant having not seriously disputed fact of death of Maina having occurred due to 66 % burn injuries sustained by her the said facet being duly established by overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution i.e. of PW4 Dr. Jadhav who along with Dr. Shirsat had conducted autopsy upon the corpse of Maina, the autopsy notes Exh. 15, the evidence of PW5 panch for inquest panchnama Exh.21, the relevant part of the evidence of investigating officer PW8 and so also that of her parents and PW6 Naib Tahsildar and PW7 Doctor treating her, leaving aside other part of their evidence except the part regarding injuries sustained by her, we find it unnecessary to discuss the said aspect in detail. Needless to add that after taking into consideration the said evidence. we cannot find any fault with the finding arrived by the trial Court of Maina having died due to the burn injuries sustained by her. 12. Now considering the moot question involved in the present appeal i.e. regarding the finding arrived by the trial Court of the appellant being author of the said injuries caused to Maina i.e. Maina having sustained them due to appellant having poured kerosene on her body at about 5 .am. on 19.5.2004 and having set her un fire, it will be necessary to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution for establishing the said facet i.e. evidence of PW2 and PW3 regarding oral dying declaration made by deceased to them, evidence of PW6 and PW7 regarding dying declaration made by deceased and recorded by PW6 in presence of PW7 and the corroborative evidence adduced regarding the said aspect. 13. 13. Now firstly taking up the evidence of PW2 and PW3 regarding the oral dying declaration made by deceased to them, the careful perusal of the said evidence reveals both of them having deposed in consonance with the matters stated while narrating prosecution case earlier, regarding the marriage of Maina with appellant, her stay at their house on two occasions and about the receipt of the information about herself being admitted in the hospital and both of them along with the relatives being to the hospital and Maina having made a dying declaration implicating the appellant as being responsible for bum injuries sustained by her by stating that the manner in which he had caused the said injuries by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her on fire and two days thereafter herself having died in the hospital while undergoing treatment. Without unnecessary detailing about evidence of both the said witnesses, it can be safely said that perusal of the same reveals the same being in consonance with each other as urged by the learned APP. 14. Now carefully considering the cross-examination effected on behalf of defence of both the said witnesses, hardly any significant thing is found to be elicited during the cross-examination except the statement of both of them being recorded on 23.5.2004. PW2, during the cross-examination, had admitted of having lodged the complaint against the appellant on the said date and had further deposed that he could not lodge the same prior to the same because he was disturbed because of incident occurred. Both of them had denied all suggestions given on behalf of defence. PW2 though admitted of having met elder brother of the appellant and his wife in the hospital but having not made any inquiry with them and denied that elder brother of the appellant in the hospital had informed that Maina had sustained bum injuries while cooking near fire place. Both of them amongst other have also deposed of having deposed falsely. 15. Both of them amongst other have also deposed of having deposed falsely. 15. Though learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail their evidence on the count of their conduct of not lodging the complaint/report with the Police prior to 23.4.2004 being unnatural, it is difficult to find any substance in the said criticism as rightly held by the trial Court in the judgment by observing that the Clime being already registered on 19.4.2004 upon the report given by PW Ion the basis of dying declaration Exh.23 of victim recorded by PW6, there survived no question of PW2 or PW3 lodging any complaint earlier than the said day i.e. Prior to Police recording their statements. Similarly considering nature of injuries sustained by Maina, the explanation advanced by PW2 that he was disturbed due to occurrence of incident also cannot be said to be unnatural. Thus upon careful scrutiny of the evidence of both the witnesses and substratum of their evidence of Maina having made dying declaration to them having remained unshaken in any manner, we find it extremely difficult to accept the criticism advanced that their evidence do not establish Maina having made dying declaration to them implicating the appellant as claimed by them. Similarly considering the reasons given by the trial Court for accepting their evidence, we find difficult to find any fault with the same or the trial Court accepting their evidence upon all the relevant counts upon which they have deposed. In the said context, we may add that the evidence of PW7 which we are referring in detail also reveals dying declaration of Maina being recorded at the hospital, is also a circumstance supporting their evidence of Maina then being in a position to make dying declaration to them. 16. Now taking up the evidence of PW7 Dr. Naik who was on duty at General Hospital Khamgaon, his evidence shows that Executive Magistrate, Khamgaon (PW6) had given him a memo to examine patient Maina admitted in the hospital and to certify whether she was conscious, and able to give dying declaration. He further deposed that accordingly he had examined patient at 7.30 a.m. on 19.5.2004 and she was found in conscious state. He also vouched for endorsement to such effect made by him in a prescribed from i.e. from in which dying declaration Exh.23 was recorded by PW6. He further deposed that accordingly he had examined patient at 7.30 a.m. on 19.5.2004 and she was found in conscious state. He also vouched for endorsement to such effect made by him in a prescribed from i.e. from in which dying declaration Exh.23 was recorded by PW6. He further deposed of Executive Magistrate recording dying declaration of the said patient and the same being concluded at 08.05 hours on 19.5.2004 and thereafter having again examined patient and she was found conscious and accordingly having made endorsement to that effect at the bottom of dying declaration. He had also vouched for the said endorsement made on the dying declaration being in his hand and bearing his signature. 17. Now considering the cross-examination of PW7, the same reveals of having deposed of not remembering whether injured Maina had abruptly stopped while narrating the incident. He categorically deposed that in his presence injured Maina having not called anybody saying "O Saheb, O Saheb" (i.e. as claimed by PW6 during his evidence). He also deposed of having not remembering whether statement of Maina was found self contradictory. He duly denied of having not examined Maina or not having found her in conscious state or having made endorsement Exh.23 as per the say of Police. He admitted mental fitness and consciousness being different aspect of state of mind. 18. The evidence of PW7 reveals that during the Court questions asked, PW7 amongst other deposed that dying declaration of Maina was recorded in his presence by Executive Magistrate Shri Gaikwad right from beginning till its conclusion. He also admitted of being aware that Medical Officer has to examine the patient Prior to recording the dying declaration and then Medical Officer being expected to make the endorsement to that effect on dying dec1aration, and himself being also aware that after completing dying declaration of the patient. Medical Officer has again to examine the patient and then to make the endorsement below the dying declaration that patient was conscious and was able to give a statement. It is most significant to observe that he admitted that the dying declaration was completed in all respect prior to making endorsement on 19.4.2004 on first page of dying declaration. 19. Medical Officer has again to examine the patient and then to make the endorsement below the dying declaration that patient was conscious and was able to give a statement. It is most significant to observe that he admitted that the dying declaration was completed in all respect prior to making endorsement on 19.4.2004 on first page of dying declaration. 19. Now considering the said answers given by PW7, the same are apparently in consonance with the matters recorded on the front page of Exh.23 i.e. his first endorsement prior to recording of a dying declaration at the middle of the said page in a place kept for giving the certificate. The same page is containing thereafter the format for recording dying dec1aration containing a matter dying declaration made by Maina implicating the appellant. The said front page is also containing signature of PW6 who had recorded the same and time of the same being concluded by 8.05 a.m. Thereafter the said dying declaration is containing further endorsement made by PW7 in a space kept for giving certificate by medical officer. 20. Thus considering the evidence of PW7 which is apparently in consonance with the matters stated regarding the relevant aspects of front page of Exh.23, it is difficult to accept that the said part of dying declaration being not established by the prosecution or the same being not true and voluntary dying dec1aration made by Maina and recorded by PW6 in presence of PW7. Even the evidence of PW6 is same to the said effect. 21. Now considering the evidence of PW6, the same curiously reveals that after recording the matters stated in first part as deposed by him in the earlier part of his evidence, after some time Maina had given call to him by raising her voice and further spoke that all the persons in her marital house were good including her husband. PW6 then asked her how she suffered burn injuries and she stated that she suffered burn injuries while cooking. She further spoke that her husband later on entered in the house and put some heavy material on her hand. Significantly enough PW7 claimed that he made the signature below the statement of injured Maina and obtained certificate of Medical Officer after completing statement of Maina at about 1805 hours. He claimed Exh.23 being the said statement. She further spoke that her husband later on entered in the house and put some heavy material on her hand. Significantly enough PW7 claimed that he made the signature below the statement of injured Maina and obtained certificate of Medical Officer after completing statement of Maina at about 1805 hours. He claimed Exh.23 being the said statement. Amongst other he also claimed that he could not obtain her signature or thumb impression upon the dying declaration as her hands were completely burnt. He was not able to state as to whose thumb impression was taken on Exh.23. 22. Now considering said evidence of PW6 in light of the recorded dying declaration Exh.23, the front page of the same about which the dilation is made hereinabove while discussing the evidence of PW7, the same is not at all found supported by the same i.e. support for such happenings or such narrations being made by Maina i.e. for the matters: after some time Maina had given call to him by raising her voice and further spoke that all the persons in her marital house were good including her husband. PW6 then asked her how she suffered burn injuries and she stated that she suffered burn injuries while cooking. She further spoke that her husband lateron entered in the house and put some heavy material on her hand. i.e. the part which is found recorded on the over leaf of Exh. 23. Needless to add that the said recorded over leaf is not containing any endorsement of Doctor - PW 7 as claimed by PW 6. Such an endorsement is found only at the end of front page as pointed earlier. In the same context, reference to the-evidence of PW1 who had brought the dying declaration from the hospital and particularly the answers given by him reveals that the dying declaration brought by him was written only one side of the paper. He further answered in the cross examination that he does not know whether both sides of the dying declaration were written at the time of lodging FIR. He had only seen the front page of dying declaration. 23. He further answered in the cross examination that he does not know whether both sides of the dying declaration were written at the time of lodging FIR. He had only seen the front page of dying declaration. 23. Now considering the reasonings given by the trial Cout1 particularly in paragraph no.25 and 26 of judgment, we find that trial court has duly taken into consideration all the aforesaid aspects and rightly not accepted the evidence of PW6 of the matters recorded on the rear side of Exh.23 being true voluntarily dying declaration made by Maina to PW6. We find that the said finding of the fact was rightly arrived by the trial court by carefully scrutinizing the evidence of PW6. PW7 and PW 1. We also find that during the further discussion made the trial co un has also rightly come to the conclusion of there being no support to the theory of deceased having suffered accidental burns from the matters found recorded in spot panchanama Exh.26 wherein no cooking utensils were found at the spot of the offence or any other circumstance pointing that Maina has suffered bum injuries while cooking near the hearth. As a net result of the same, we are unable to accede with the criticism of any error being committed by the trial court in not accepting the relevant part of the evidence of PW6 regarding the matters recorded overleaf of Exh.23 being also true voluntary dying declaration made by Maina and hence so also discarding the relevant matters to such effect absolving the applicant recorded overleaf of Exh.23. Needless to add that criticism to the contrary effect made by learned counsel for the appellant will not deserve any credence. Similarly, we also find no en-or being committed by trial court in accepting the dying declaration recorded on front page of Exh.23 and duly proved through the evidence of PW7 and found corroborated by and large by the evidence of PW6 regarding himself recording the same. 24. Similarly, we also find no en-or being committed by trial court in accepting the dying declaration recorded on front page of Exh.23 and duly proved through the evidence of PW7 and found corroborated by and large by the evidence of PW6 regarding himself recording the same. 24. Thus, considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution the same duly establishing deceased having made oral dying declaration to PW2 and 3 of the appellant having poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire and the same being also found supported from other corroborative evidence in shape of the material seized from spot of offence and so also the same being found corroborated by dying declaration of Maina recorded by PW6 Naib Tahsildar to the tune for which his evidence is accepted and well supp0l1ed by the evidence of PW7 regarding the relevant aspect, we do not find any fault being committed by the trial court in arriving at the finding as stated earlier and convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence of murder of his wife. 25. Thus, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the appeal preferred and the said appeal sans merits deserves to be and accordingly stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.