JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2002 as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai in S.T. 81(WT/K) of 2001. The prosecution was launched against the appellant under Section 498(A)/ 302 IPC when the Officer-in-charge of Teliamura Police Station received a complaint from one Smti. Sati Rani Sarkar. As the said complaint disclosed the cognizable offences, Teliamura PS Case No. 42 of 1998 under Section 498(A)/ 326/ 307 of IPC was registered. After investigation, the Investigating Officer on finding prima facie materials submitted the charge sheet by sending the appellant to face the trial under Section 302/ 498A IPC. Having taken cognizance, that case was transmitted by way of commitment to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge on receipt of the records from the Court of the SDJM Khowai framed the following charges against the appellant: Firstly, you on or about 25.7.1998 at 18.30 hours at Joynagar under Teliamura Police Station being the husband of Tulsi Sarkar subjected her to cruelty to wit assaulted her mercilessly and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498(a) of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Secondly: you on the same date, time and place committed the murder of Tulsi Sarkar by intentionally or knowing by causing her death and thereby committed and offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced, wherein the prosecution adduced as many as 15 witnesses to substantiate the charge and also admitted 12 documents in the evidence being Ext. 1 to Ext. 12 and Ext. 'X' as per order dated 16.12.2010 by this Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai on analyzing the evidence as laid by the prosecution returned the finding of conviction and sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default in payment of fine to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month under Section 302 IPC and also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for commission of offence punishable under Section 49B(A) IPC. 2. Mr. 10,000/- and in default in payment of fine to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month under Section 302 IPC and also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for commission of offence punishable under Section 49B(A) IPC. 2. Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that on the basis of three purported dying declarations the judgment of conviction has been returned. According to Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant by relying on the dying declarations, the trial Court has committed serious illegality as no medical opinion is found as regards the fitness when the purported dying declarations are stated to have been made. 3. On the other hand, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State emphatically submitted that no infirmity can be attached for relying those dying declarations inasmuch as all the dying declarations are corroborated each other. Moreover, he stated that the medical opinion cannot be treated as a sine qua non for relying on the dying declaration. What has to be cautiously examined for placing the reliance on dying declaration is that whether the dying declarations were made voluntarily or not. For appreciating the rival contentions as projected by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary that the evidence be re-appreciated in the context of the challenge in the appeal. 4. Tulsi Sarkar, the daughter of the informant, namely Smti Rani Sarkar (PW-1) was given in marriage with the appellant about two years before the date of occurrence. After a few months of their marriage the appellant started torturing. On his wife, Tulsi. Tulsi used to narrate her tale of torments for being tortured by the appellant as and when she visited her parents. Tulsi confided her parents about the threat as posed by the appellant. The parents consoled her by giving assurance that the appellant would not repeat such acts in future. In the course of time, the appellant took a house on rent in the reserved forest locality at Joynagar and started residing with Tulsi but continued to torture her. 5. On 25.07.1998 when Tulsi was preparing to go to a nearby house for reading the Manasha Punthi the accused restrained her from going out. On that issue an altercation ensued between the appellant and the deceased. 5. On 25.07.1998 when Tulsi was preparing to go to a nearby house for reading the Manasha Punthi the accused restrained her from going out. On that issue an altercation ensued between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant kicked Tulsi on the abdomen even knowing that on that time Tulsi was pregnant for eight months. Tulsi having hit by the appellant fell on the ground, then the appellant pouring Kerosene oil on her body set her ablaze. With severe burn injuries she was immediately shifted to the local hospital by the villagers and immediately thereafter the parents of Tulsi on receipt of the information rushed to Teliamura Hospital where she was admitted. The parents found Tulsi in the injured condition. The medical officer of the Teliamura Hospital advised to shift Tulsi to G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala for better treatment. One Hari Sarkar, father of Tulsi (PW-2), by hiring the vehicle shifted Tulsi to G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala. Finally, Tulsi succumbed to her injuries in the hospital after 13 days from the date of occurrence. Smti. Sati Rani Sarkar (PW-1), mother of Tulsi lodged the ezahar to the Officer-in-Charge, Teliamura Police Station and Teliamura P.S. Case No. 42 of 1998 was registered. The investigation culminated into submission of the charge sheet against the appellant. 6. At the instance of the PW-1, Tripura Commission for Women inquired into the matter and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, Tulsi Sarkar. Apart that the Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of the Tulsi under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) during investigation, a few days before the Tulsi's death. 7. Smti. Sati Rani Sarkar (PW-1) deposed in the Court that marriage of her daughter with the appellant was solemnized five years before the date of deposition. After few months of marriage, the appellant started torturing her daughter. Tulsi narrated the incidents of torture as and when she used to visit her parents. The PW-1 was used to console her and she was paid some money to Tulsi. On the date of occurrence, PW-1 came to learn from the villagers, that Tulsi was admitted in the local hospital. After getting the news she rushed to the Teliamura Hospital from where doctor shifted her daughter to G.B.P. Hospital. The PW-1 was used to console her and she was paid some money to Tulsi. On the date of occurrence, PW-1 came to learn from the villagers, that Tulsi was admitted in the local hospital. After getting the news she rushed to the Teliamura Hospital from where doctor shifted her daughter to G.B.P. Hospital. The PW-1 stated in her deposition that her daughter Tulsi told her at G.B.P. Hospital that her husband had poured Kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. The PW-1 proved the FIR and her signature thereof. She also stated that for 13 days she struggled for life in the hospital. In the cross-examination, PW-1 clarified that her daughter started speaking after two days from her admission and she told PW-1 in G.B.P. Hospital that she was set on fire by the appellant. 8. Hari Sarkar, father of Tulsi (PW. 2) corroborated testimony of the PW. 1 stated that after a few months from the marriage, the appellant started torturing on his daughter and it had increased after birth of a female child. On the date of occurrence at about 7 p.m. Pratima Sarkar (PW-7), sister of the appellant came and informed the PW 2 that the appellant had fled away after setting his daughter Tulsi on fire and her daughter had been shifted to hospital. The PW 2 rushed to the Teliamura hospital where the attending medical officer referred Tulsi to G.B.P. Hospital as an emergent measure. PW 2 hired a Jeep and carried Tulsi to G.B. Hospital, Agartala without delay. PW-2 stated further that on the following day of her admission, Tulsi told him while she was sleeping in her room, the appellant poured kerosene oil on her and when Tulsi was trying to free her from the clutch of appellant he fell her on the ground by inflicting her a kick on her abdomen and set her on fire. 9. The deposition of the PW-3 reveals that immediately after the occurrence the police seized burnt saree with kerosene container and match box from the place of occurrence by preparing a seizure memo. The witnesses also affirmed the death of Tulsi due to burn injuries sustained in the said occurrence. 10. One Ahmed Ali (PW. 6) confirmed death of the Tulsi due to burn injuries. The witnesses also affirmed the death of Tulsi due to burn injuries sustained in the said occurrence. 10. One Ahmed Ali (PW. 6) confirmed death of the Tulsi due to burn injuries. The PW 6, a neighbour of the appellant, came to the house of Jahar Saha after hearing hue and cry, where the appellant used to reside with his wife as tenant On finding Tulsi in an injured condition villagers removed her to the hospital. 11. PW 7 and 8, the full blood brothers of the appellant, turned hostile to the prosecution case and accordingly they are declared hostile. These witnesses did not reveal anything of material importance, whereas PW. 9, Smt. Ratna Saha a neighbour of the appellant stated that on hearing hue and cry she rushed to the place of occurrence and found Tulsi a blaze and naked. The villagers extinguished the fire and covered her by cloth. In her cross-examination, the PW-9 stated that Tulsi was standing and she was speechless. 12. One Ranjan Sarkar, brother of Tulsi, deposed as the PW. 10 and corroborated the testimony of the PW. 1 and PW. 2. He stated that on his query Tulsi had told him in the hospital that the appellant assaulted her and fell her on the ground by inflicting a kick on her abdomen and set her on fire after pouring Kerosene oil upon her body. He further stated that Tulsi died after 13 days from the date of her admission in the hospital. 13. PW 13, Smti. Dipa Saha who was working in the Tirpura Commission for Women as the Personal Assistant to the Member Secretary stated that she received the written complaint from the PW. 1 that her daughter had been set on fire by her husband and upon receipt of such information, the Chairperson of the Commission directed 'two members' of the Commission namely Smti. Indu Bala Das and Smti Gouri Das to visit the G.B.P. Hospital and to enquire into the matter. Accordingly, Smti. Indu Bala Das and Smti Gouri Das visited G.B.P. Hospital, met the victim and recorded the statement of the victim. The statement of the victim was recorded by them. Later on the said statement was seized by the Police. She is the seizure witness. Smt. Gouri Das, who accompanied Smti. Indu Bala Das, member of the Tripura Commission for Women deposed as the PW. The statement of the victim was recorded by them. Later on the said statement was seized by the Police. She is the seizure witness. Smt. Gouri Das, who accompanied Smti. Indu Bala Das, member of the Tripura Commission for Women deposed as the PW. 14 and confirmed the statements of the PW. 13. She stated that a written complaint was received from the PW. 1 on 27.07.1998 where it was narrated that her daughter was set on fire by the appellant and for serious burn injuries she was being treated in the G.B.P. Hospital at Agartala. She further stated that Smt. Manjulika Basu, Chairperson of the Tripura Commission for Women directed her and Indu Bala Das to visit G.B. Hospital in order to enquire into the matter. The PW. 14 also confirmed that Smti. Indu Bala Das, member of the Tripura Commission for Women on having due permission from the duty nurse put few questions; to Tulsi in presence of the said duty nurse and the PW. 14 reduced the statement of Tulsi into writing as per direction of Smti Indu Bala Das. After recording the statement, Tulsi also put left thumb impression. The PW. 14 also proved the statement of Tulsi Sarkar as Ext. 12 as was recorded by her. She further admitted that she also put her signature as writer and asked the victim whether she was in a position to put her signature. In reply the victim told her that she will put her thumb impression. Accordingly, the PW. 14 took left thumb impression of the victim Tulsi on the statement as recorded by her. The PW. 14 also proved the endorsement by the Thumb Impression and also the complaint as received by the Tripura Commission for Women from the PW. 1. The said dying declaration reads as follows: I am Smti. Tulshi Sarkar W/o. Shri Manik Sarkar, Vill-Joynagar, near Block office, P.S. Teliamura. About two and half years back we had married at our own choice. My husband is a day labourer and a rickshaw puller. Since after the marriage my husband started torturing upon me physically. In an intoxicated condition he used to tell me very often/daily that he will set fire on my person. Lastly, 25th July, on Saturday at twilight by consuming liquor he had set fire (on my person) by way of pouring kerosene oil. Then I was pregnant. Since after the marriage my husband started torturing upon me physically. In an intoxicated condition he used to tell me very often/daily that he will set fire on my person. Lastly, 25th July, on Saturday at twilight by consuming liquor he had set fire (on my person) by way of pouring kerosene oil. Then I was pregnant. After coming at Hospital gave birth of a dead male child. My father-in-law and mother-in-law never misbehave with me. Both of them loved me. My father-in-law and mother-in-law used to live in a separate house. Before it I have a female child of one and half years. On hearing my cry due to fire set on my person the neighbouring people came over here and they had admitted me in Teliamura hospital in burnt condition. Then and there I was sent to G.B. hospital from over there." (translated by the translators of this Court) 14. The Investigating Officer namely Sri N. Das deposed in the Court as the PW-12 and stated that on 25.07.1998 he took up the investigation of the case and visited the place of occurrence but found that the accused had absconded from his house. The PW 12 also recorded the statement of Tulsi Sarkar which she admitted in the evidence as Ext. 9. The PW. 12 stated that he recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the hospital and seized the dying declaration of Tulsi Sarkar as recorded by the PW. 14 from the office of Tripura Commission for Women. On completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the appellant as a prima facie case against the appellant was established. 15. In the trial, the post mortem report was not brought in the evidence. By the order dated 16.12.2010, this Court directed the Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura to summon the doctor who conducted the autopsy and bring the post mortem report in the evidence. The Additional Sessions Judge for non appearance of the doctor could not record the statement. This Court again directed to take all possible steps to ensure the attendance of the said doctor. On 18.08.2011 a further order was made directing the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura to take fruitful steps for ensuring the attendance of the doctor who conducted the autopsy. This Court again directed to take all possible steps to ensure the attendance of the said doctor. On 18.08.2011 a further order was made directing the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura to take fruitful steps for ensuring the attendance of the doctor who conducted the autopsy. On 01.09.2011, pursuant to the earlier order dated 16.01.2012 this Court passed an order for recording the statement of the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy, namely Dr. P.K. Das by way of the commission as per provision of Chapter-XIII of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura examined Dr. Pijush Kanti Das as PW who stated that on 07.08.1998 when he was posted as Medical Officer, IGM as Head of the Department of the Forensic Medicine and Toxicology he conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Tulsi Sarkar, wife of the appellant in reference to the GB TOP GD No. 164 dated 07.08.1998. The body was identified by one Gopal Sarkar and one constable baring No. 1097 namely, Pradip Debbarma. On examination, he found about 70% burns all over the body except hair and the perineal area of the deceased with eruption of skin. Ante-mortem burn occurred about 13 days back. The deceased prior to her death was admitted to G.B.P. Hospital (Female Surgical Ward No. III) on 25.07.1998. All the parts of the body were healthy except heart and lung which were congested. After examination it appeared to him that the death was caused due to cardio respiratory failure. Thereafter on that day he had laid his report which was also admitted as Ext. 'X' whereas his signature was exhibited as Ext. 'X/1'. In the cross-examination he did not divulge anything but clarified that on the basis of the examination physically, he had mentioned that there was 70% burn injury on the body of the deceased. He further stated that prior to preparation of the report he did not go through the concerned bed head ticket of the deceased. He stated that he applied scientific method at the time of post mortem. On perusal of the post mortem report, Ext. 'X', this Court finds that the PW-Dr. P.K. Das has categorically opined that cause of death is burn injuries. He stated that he applied scientific method at the time of post mortem. On perusal of the post mortem report, Ext. 'X', this Court finds that the PW-Dr. P.K. Das has categorically opined that cause of death is burn injuries. In defence of the appellant, no evidence was laid, even when the appellant was examined under Section 13 CrPC he did not disclose anything how the accident occurred. He abruptly denied all the incriminatory parts of the deposition of the witness which were put forthwith to him elaborately. 16. The statement as recorded by the PW. 12 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation has been admitted in the evidence as Ext. 9 which is required to be excerpted for purpose of appreciation: On being asked (i) am stating that my age is 18 years old. I do not know how to read and write, by profession House-wife. About 21/2 years back I got married with Shri Manik Sarkar S/o. Shri Gopal Sarkar a resident of Joynagar, under Teliamura P.S. socially by love affair. My husband is a Rickshaw pullar. Since after the marriage on taking liquor my husband started torturing upon me physically very often and he had threatened me saying to kill me by way of setting fire. But my father-in-law and mother-in-law both are very good persons. They loved me. By this time I gave birth of a female child. But owing to the poverty my said female child lived at my parent's house. At the present she is of 21/2 years. Owing to torturing inflicted by my husband (I) had gone to my parent's house for 3(three) times. But at every times my husband had taken me on excusing and promising that in future my husband will not misbehave with me. But after some days my husband again started torturing upon me. About 1(one) month back my husband had taken me in the state of 8(eight) month's pregnant in the house of Jahar Saha at R.F. Joynagar as tenant. After taking in that house my husband started torturing upon me physically and yesterday, (I) do not know the date, on Saturday after dusk at about 6.30 O'clock when I had started for the adjacent house in order to reciting the 'Book of Manasa' then my husband came back at home and he forbidden me to go out of the house. Taking this issue an altercation was ensured in between us. At that time my husband had kicked in my lower abdomen and being agitated (he) had set fire on my person with a match by way of taking kerosene oil from the bottle and pouring it on me and thereafter he fled away. On hearing my shout the neighbouring people had come over here and at first (they had taken me to Teliamura hospital and then and there I was sent to G.B. Hospital from there. The entire body of mine was already got burnt and today in the morning I gave birth of a dead male child. With a view to killing me my husband had occurred this incident." (Translated by the translators of this Court) 17. The Apex Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2006 (3) SCC 374 has held as under: 22. The complex pattern of life which is never static requires a fresher outlook and a timely and vigorous moulding of old precepts to some new conditions, ideas and ideals. If the Court acts contrary to the role it is expected to play, it will be destruction of the fundamental edifice on which the justice delivery system stands. People for whose benefit the Courts exist shall start doubting the efficacy of the system. "Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: 'The Judge was biased.' "(Per Lord Denning, M.R. in Metropolitan Properties Co. Ltd. V. Lannon, All ER p. 310A). The perception may be wrong about the Judge's bias, but the Judge concerned must be careful to see that no, such impression gains ground. Judges like Caesar's wife should be above suspicion (Per Bowen, LJ. In Leeson V. General Council of Medical Education.) 23. By not acting in the expected manner a Judge exposes himself to unnecessary criticism. At the same time the Judge is not to be innovative at pleasure. He is not a knight errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness, as observed by Cardozo in the Nature of Judicial process. 24. It was significantly said that law, to be just and fair has to be seen devoid of flaw. It has to keep the promise to justice and it cannot stay petrified and sit nonchalantly. 24. It was significantly said that law, to be just and fair has to be seen devoid of flaw. It has to keep the promise to justice and it cannot stay petrified and sit nonchalantly. The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope (see Jennison V. Baker). Increasingly, people are believing as observed by Salmon quoted by Diogenes Laertkius in Lives of the Philosophers, "Laws are like Spiders' webs: if some light or powerless thing falls into them, it is caught, but a bigger one can break through and get away:' Jonathan Swift, in his" Essay on the Faculties of the Mind" said in similar line: "Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through. 18. Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that the dying declaration made to the PW. 1, the PW. 2 and the PW. 10 hardly can be believed as they being the close relative might improve their version to wreak the vengeance against the appellant by acting on their perception. He further stated that the statement as recorded by the PW. 14 cannot be also believed inasmuch as whether the victim was desired in the conscious level or not cannot be ascertained from the statement. As such it cannot be stated that the statement was given voluntarily and in the required state of fitness. Therefore, if any reliance is placed on those statements there would be miscarriage of justice. In support of his contention he referred a decision of the Apex Court as reported in Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 710 where Apex Court held that: The Court also must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Normally, therefore the Court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration looks up to the medical opinion. Normally, therefore the Court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that since thee is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable. A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provide the indication is positive and definite." The Apex Court in Laxman(supra) further held that: In most cases, however, such statements are made orally before death ensues and is reduced to writing by someone like a Magistrate or a doctor or a police officer. When it is recorded, no oath is necessary nor is the presence of a Magistrate absolutely necessary, although to assure authenticity it is usual to call a Magistrate, if available for recording the statement of a man about to die. There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration man must necessary be made to a Magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a magistrate there is no specified statutory form for such recording. Consequently, what evidential value or weight has to be attached to such statement necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. What is essential required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind." It is also required to mention that the Laxman(supra) has declared that the law declared in Paparambaka Rosamma Vs. State of A.P., reported in (1999) 7 SCC 695 holding that in the absence of a medical certification to the effect that the injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the declaration, it would be very much risky to accept the subjective satisfaction of a Magistrate who opined that the injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of making a dying declaration is not correct appreciation of law. Mr. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant perhaps was trying to encash the ratio as was laid down in Paparambaka Rosamma (supra) which cannot be applied anymore. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant further relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Sharda Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2010 SC 408 where the Apex Court declared that the dying declaration out of three dying declarations made by the deceased was not trustworthy holding that earlier two dying declarations did not implicate the appellant in that case but the subsequent and third dying declaration implicated him. The Apex Court doubted the said dying declaration holding that the said dying declaration, Ext. P-18, cannot be treated as trustworthy as it is shrouded by many doubts. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Sharda(supra) has no application in the context of the present case, where PW. 1, PW. 2, PW. 10, PW. 14 and PW. 12 are all in union to state that the deceased before her death only named the appellant for committing the offence. 19. While refuting the proposition as advanced by Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State submitted that the Supreme Court has developed the law within the parameters of Section 32 of the Evidence Act in which the statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc. is relevant. Mr. Debnath, learned Additional PP appearing for the State relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Mukeshbhai Gopalbhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat, as reported in AIR 2010 SC 3692 where it has been held that: 5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision when read with Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act would reveal that a statement of a person recorded under Section 161 would be treated as a dying declaration after his death. The observation of the High Court that the dying declarations Ex. 44 and 48 had no evidentiary value, therefore, is erroneous. In this view of the mater, the first dying declaration made to the Magistrate on 14th September 1993 would, in fact, be the First Information Report in this case. The PW. The observation of the High Court that the dying declarations Ex. 44 and 48 had no evidentiary value, therefore, is erroneous. In this view of the mater, the first dying declaration made to the Magistrate on 14th September 1993 would, in fact, be the First Information Report in this case. The PW. 1 in her deposition (in the cross examination) has categorically stated that after two days of her admission in the hospital her daughter started speaking and the said statement was not rebutted by the defence. Therefore, there cannot be any block in accepting the oral dying declaration made to the PW. 1 PW. 2 and PW. 10 and also in accepting the statement recorded by the Tripura Commission for Women (Ext. 12) as reduced in writing by the PW. 14 even though Smti. Indu Bala Das was not examined by the prosecution. The Ext. 9, a statement of the deceased as recorded by the PW. 12 preceding the death of Tulsi Sarkar can also be treated as the dying declaration. From Ext. 9 and 12 as well as from the oral dying declarations made to the PW. 1, the PW. 2 and the PW. 10 it would be irresistibly established that the appellant but none has poured Kerosene oil on the person of the deceased and set her ablaze with intention to murder her. Ultimately, the deceased died struggling for life after 13 days from the date of occurrence. There had been no explanation from the defence under Section 106 of the Evidence Act how the victim received 70% burn injuries in her matrimonial home. Therefore, there cannot be any room for doubt as regards the role of the appellant in murder of the deceased namely Tulsi Sarkar and as such this Court finds no infirmity in the finding of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. However, for insufficiency of the evidence as regards the unlawful demand for constituting cruelty, this Court is not inclined to affirm the finding of conviction as returned under Section 498A of the IPC. As a result, the finding of conviction as recorded under Section 498A IPC stands quashed and as a corollary to that the sentence as imposed for commission of offence under Section 498A IPC is also set aside. As a result, the finding of conviction as recorded under Section 498A IPC stands quashed and as a corollary to that the sentence as imposed for commission of offence under Section 498A IPC is also set aside. However, the sentence as imposed by the trial Court has been liberally imposed and as such, this Court considering the socio economic status of the appellant shall not alter it. Therefore, the appellant shall undergo the Rigorous Imprisonment for life and shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) and in default of payment thereof to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 20. For the reasons as stated above the appeal stands dismissed, however, with interference of the finding of conviction and the order of sentence for commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Send down the LCRs forthwith. Appeal dismissed