V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. :- The appellant/original accused has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 07. 12.2005 passed by learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2004. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. One Thousand in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated. is as under : Pramila, who was daughter of P.W. 2 Shakuntala, was married to the appellant. After her marriage Pramila resided with her husband at Adarsh Nagar, Pusad, Pramila and appellant had four issues out of their wedlock. For 23 years after the marriage Pramila was treated properly, however, thereafter the appellant started ill treating and harassing her. The appellant was unemployed and Pramila was working as maid-servant. The appellant was addicted to liquor and under the influence of liquor he used to beat Pramila and also demand money from Pramila for liquor. On 29.01.2004 the appellant again demanded money from his wife Pramila for liquor. As Pramila did not give money the appellant poured kerosene on Pramila and set her on fire. He then came out of the house, latched the door from outside and went away. Someone informed P.W. 2 Shakuntala about the incident at about 4.00 p.m. hence, she rushed to the house of her daughter. Her daughter narrated the entire incident to her. Then Shakuntala took her daughter to hospital. In the hospital dying declaration of Pramila came to be recorded by P.W.1 Executive Magistrate Shri Meshram. In the dying declaration Pramila stated that her husband demanded money for liquor. She gave him Rs.201-, however, he demanded more money from her, as Pramila refused, the appellant developed anger against her and poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The said dying declaration was treated as First Information Report (Exh.32). Thereafter investigation commenced. Pramila died on 3 1.01.2004. Thereafter the case was converted from 307 to 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Dead body of Pramila was sent for post mortem. It was found that Pramila died on account of 98% burn injuries. After completion of investigation charge sheet carne to be filed. Thereafter investigation commenced. Pramila died on 3 1.01.2004. Thereafter the case was converted from 307 to 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Dead body of Pramila was sent for post mortem. It was found that Pramila died on account of 98% burn injuries. After completion of investigation charge sheet carne to be filed. In due course the case was committed to the Court of session. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellants original accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated in paragraph I above, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. The conviction is mainly based on oral dying declaration given by Pram it a to her mother P. W. 2 Shakuntala, dying declaration Exh.20 recorded by Executive Magistrate P.W. 1 Meshram and evidence of P.W. 3 Suraj, who is an eyewitness to the incident. Suraj is son of the appellant and deceased Pramila. P.W. 2 Shakuntala has stated that deceased Pramila was married to the appellant. After her marriage Prarnila resided with her husband at Adarsh Nagar, Pusad. Pramila and appellant had four issues out of their wedlock. For 2-3 years after the marriage Pramila was treated properly, however, thereafter the appellant started ill-treating and harassing her. The appellant was unemployed and Pramila was working as maid-servant. The appellant was addicted to liquor and under the influence of liquor he used to beat Pramila and also demand money from Pramila for liquor. On 29.01.2004 the appellant again demanded money from his wife Pramila for liquor. As Pramila did not give money the appellant poured kerosene on Pramila and set her on fire. He then came out of the house, latched the door from outside and ran away. On 29.01.2004 the appellant again demanded money from his wife Pramila for liquor. As Pramila did not give money the appellant poured kerosene on Pramila and set her on fire. He then came out of the house, latched the door from outside and ran away. Thus, the evidence of P. W. 2 Shakuntala clearly shows that the appellant set Pramila on fire. 6. After Pramila was taken to Hospital her dying declaration came to be recorded by P.W. 1 Executive Magistrate Shri Meshram. In the dying declaration Pramilastated that her husband demanded money for liquor. She gave him Rs.20/-, however, he demanded more money from her, since Pramila refused to give money, the appellant developed anger against her and poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. 7. P.W. 3 Suraj is the son of Pramilaand the appellant. He was about 13 years old at the time of the incident. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that on the day of the incident some quarrel was going on between his parents because his father demanded Rs.10/- from his mother for liquor. However, in the cross-examination he has admitted that on the day of the incident his mother had paid Rs.35/- to his father to buy chappal (footwear) for him (Suraj). Hence, he and his father went to the market to purchase a pair of chap pal for Suraj. But his father did not purchase chappal and spent entire amount on liquor. When they returned back, on inquiry by his mother, he told her that his father did not purchase chappal but instead drank liquor from the said amount. Therefore, quarrel took place between his father and his mother. Again his father demanded Rs. 10/- from his mother but his mother declined. His father beat his mother. His grandfather intervened in the quarrel but his father did not listen to him. His father then took his grandfather out of the house and latched the door of the house from inside. Suraj heard cries of his mother to save her. Thereafter his father came out of the house and put the latch on the door from out side. Then villagers gathered at the spot. Later on his mother was taken to hospital. Thus, the evidence of Suraj also shows that the appellant set Pramila on fire. 8. The evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence. Then villagers gathered at the spot. Later on his mother was taken to hospital. Thus, the evidence of Suraj also shows that the appellant set Pramila on fire. 8. The evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence. The medical evidence shows that Pramila died on account of sustaining 98% burn injuries. The clothes of the appellant as well as deceased Pramila were seized by the Investigating Agency vide panchnama Exh.25. The clothes were sent to Chemical Analyzer. C.A. report is at Exh.33. The clothes of the appellant as well as deceased had traces of kerosene residue. Thus, the C.A. report and the medical evidence also support the prosecution case. 9. Looking the evidence on record, we find that there is sufficient material to connect the appellant with the crime. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 10. Fees to be paid to the appointed Advocate are quantified at Rs. One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only. Appeal dismissed.