Judgment :- K. MOHAN RAM, J. 1. The appellant, who faced trial in S.C.No.263 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court (Mahalir Court), Cuddalore for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo two months rigourous imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence imposed, the appellant is before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant is the son of the aunt of the deceased - Kasapayee. About two months prior to 12.7.2009, when the deceased took mud for swobbing from the dilapidated house of the accused, which is situated on the east of the house of the deceased, she was assaulted by him and due to that, there was enmity between them. On the evening of 11.7.2009, the appellant, in a drunken mood, stated that he would pull her intestines out and make it a garland around his neck. Due to enmity, at about 1 AM on 12.7.2009, while the deceased was sleeping on an iron nylon rope cot in front of her house, the appellant poured kerosene on her and set fire. When the deceased got up, the appellant ran inside his house. On hearing the screams of the deceased, her mother got up and doused the flames. The deceased suffered burns and as a result of which, died on 17.7.2009. A charge was framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, 12 witnesses were examined and ExP1 to ExP14 and MO1 to MO3 were marked. The defence neither let in any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. 4. PW1, who is the mother of the deceased, is residing at Murugankoil Street, Kamatchipettai, Panruti Taluk. PW1 knows the appellant, who is the son of her sister-in-law. The house of the appellant is situated opposite to the house of PW1. The deceased was married to one Packiaraj. After the marriage, the deceased was living with her two children and her husband. At the time of occurrence, the husband of the deceased was working as an agricultural cooli at Chennai. The house of the appellant is situated opposite to the house of PW1. The deceased was married to one Packiaraj. After the marriage, the deceased was living with her two children and her husband. At the time of occurrence, the husband of the deceased was working as an agricultural cooli at Chennai. A year prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased took a little amount of mud from the dilapidated wall of the house of the appellant for swobbing the house. Because of that, the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a stick. On the date of occurrence, the deceased was lying on the iron nylon cot in front of her house. PW1 was lying down on the floor little away from the cot. At about 9 PM on 11.7.2009, the appellant was moving about 5 times near the head portion of the cot, which was noticed by PW1. As there was some quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, PW1 did not say anything. At about 1 AM on 12.7.2009, the accused/appellant poured kerosene over the deceased around the cot, set fire, ran away and gone inside his house. PW1 got up, knocked at the door of the house of the appellant, put a sack over the body of the victim, put off the fire and rolled her on the floor. Thereafter, their neighbours came there, ambulance was called and the deceased was taken to Cuddalore Government Hospital. The doctors at the Government Hospital, Cuddalore wanted the deceased to be taken to Pondicherry Government Hospital for further treatment and accordingly, the deceased was admitted there and in spite of giving treatment, the victim died after six days. In respect of that, PW1 was examined by the Inspector. 5. When PW2 – Dr.Nagarajan on 12.7.2009 was on duty at the Government Hospital, Cuddalore at about 2.30 AM, the victim was brought to the hospital with burn injuries. She was admitted to the emergency ward and at 4.30 AM, the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore recorded her dying declaration. At that time, the deceased was fully conscious and in a sound state of mind and regarding that, PW2 had issued a certificate, which is marked as ExP1. She was admitted to the emergency ward and at 4.30 AM, the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore recorded her dying declaration. At that time, the deceased was fully conscious and in a sound state of mind and regarding that, PW2 had issued a certificate, which is marked as ExP1. In his presence, the Judicial Magistrate NO.1, Cuddalore recorded the dying declaration of the deceased and PW1 has stated that throughout the period of recording the dying declaration, the deceased was in a sound state of mind and was fully conscious and to that effect, an endorsement was made by PW2 , which was marked as ExP2. 6. PW3 – Ms.P.Sudha was the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore. On 12.7.2009 when she was in her house at about 4.15 AM, on receiving an intimation from the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, she went to the hospital to record the dying declaration of the deceased – Kasapayee. She reached the hospital at 4.25 AM and started recording the dying declaration at 4.30 AM. The victim was identified by PW2 – Dr.Nagarajan and certified that the victim was in a fit condition and fully conscious to give the statement. PW3, to find out whether the deceased was conscious and whether she was fit to make a statement, put certain questions to her and recorded her answers. PW3 had also ascertained about the name of her village and as to where she was residing and introduced herself as the Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the deceased expressed her desire to make a voluntary statement. Before recording the dying declaration, PW3 removed everyone including the person, who brought the deceased to hospital and ensured that nobody else was present except the doctor. At about 4.30 PM, she started recording the dying declaration. In her dying declaration, the deceased had stated as follows : (TAMIL) 7. The recording was completed at 4.40 AM. After completing the recording of dying declaration also, the doctor certified that when the dying declaration was being recorded, the deceased was in a sound state of mind and was conscious. He had certified so under ExP2. PW3 read over the statement of the deceased, who acknowledged the same and she had stated that the statement was given on her own without the inducement of anybody else. ExP3 is the dying declaration. In ExP3 dying declaration, the thumb impression of the deceased was obtained. He had certified so under ExP2. PW3 read over the statement of the deceased, who acknowledged the same and she had stated that the statement was given on her own without the inducement of anybody else. ExP3 is the dying declaration. In ExP3 dying declaration, the thumb impression of the deceased was obtained. Then, the same was forwarded to the concerned court. 8. PW4 was the doctor, who was on duty in the emergency ward on 12.7.2009 at 2.15 AM. The deceased was brought by her sister Kuppammal for treatment. At that time, the deceased told PW4 that her aunt's son poured kerosene and set her on fire. The deceased further told to PW4 that while she was sleeping in her house at 1 AM on 12.7.2009, the occurrence had taken place. PW4 had noted the injuries on the body of the deceased and issued ExP4 – the wound certificate. In ExP4 – wound certificate, PW4 had noted down the following injuries : "Burns of various degrees over back, buttocks, both thighs, right leg and right upper limbs." " She had further stated that the deceased suffered 40 to 50% burn injuries. PW4 sent the intimation to the police station. 9. PW9 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station on 12.7.2009. On receipt of a telephonic message, he went to Cuddalore Government General Hospital at 11.30 AM, enquired the victim and recorded her statement. The same was marked as ExP10. He obtained the left thumb impression of the deceased in ExP10. He returned to the police station at 1.30 PM and registered a case in Cr.No.222 of 2009 for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The printed first information report is ExP11. He forwarded the original complaint and the first information report to court and the copies of the same to other officers. He was enquired by the Investigating Officer. 10. PW10 was the Inspector of Police, Panruti Police Station and he was in charge of Kadampuliyur Police Station on 12.7.2009. On receipt of the copy of the first information report in Cr.NO.222 of 2009, he took up the investigation. At 2.30 PM on 12.7.2009, he went to the scene of occurrence and enquired PW6 and one Baskar and in their presence, prepared the observation mahazar and a rough sketch – ExP12. On receipt of the copy of the first information report in Cr.NO.222 of 2009, he took up the investigation. At 2.30 PM on 12.7.2009, he went to the scene of occurrence and enquired PW6 and one Baskar and in their presence, prepared the observation mahazar and a rough sketch – ExP12. At the scene of occurrence, he examined PW6, Baskar and one Shanmugam and recorded the statements. He recovered one burnt iron nylon rope cot from the scene of occurrence, one half burnt green colour saree with white flowered prints in the presence of witnesses under a mahazar. Thereafter, he went to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore and examined the deceased, PW1 - Sakunthala and Kuppammal and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to PW11, who took over the charge of Kadampuliyur Police Station. 11. PW11 received an intimation from the Government Hospital, Puducherry on 17.7.2009 to the effect that Kasapayee, who was under treatment, died. On receipt of the same, he proceeded to Puducherry Government Hospital, obtained the death intimation report, altered the offence from Section 307 to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sent the alteration report under ExP13 to the court. At 8.30 AM on 18.7.2009 in the presence of panchayatdhars and witnesses, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report. The inquest report is ExP14. The inquest was over by 11.30 AM. At the time of inquest, he examined PW1 – Sakunthala, Valliyammai, Krishnamurthy, Ravikumar and Shanmugam and recorded their statements. He sent the dead body through the Head Constable Mr.Kaliyamurthi with a requisition to the hospital to conduct the post mortem. 12. PW5 was the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Puducherry. When she was on duty on 18.7.2009 at about 12.05 hours, she got a requisition from PW11 through the Head Constable Kaliyamurthi, who identified the dead body of the deceased and commenced the post mortem at 12.20 PM. 12. PW5 was the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Puducherry. When she was on duty on 18.7.2009 at about 12.05 hours, she got a requisition from PW11 through the Head Constable Kaliyamurthi, who identified the dead body of the deceased and commenced the post mortem at 12.20 PM. During post mortem, PW5 noted the following external injuries : "Epidermal and Dermo : Epidermal infected burns involving ??one – third of lower back of chest; ??right half of front abdomen; ??whole of back abdomen; ??whole of right thigh; ??medial half of front and whole of back of the left thigh; ??upper half of front and whole of back of right leg; ??upper half of back of left leg; ??genital region; ??scattered burns over the hands. Extent of burns – 45% No other external injury found." She issued ExP5 – the post mortem certificate, in which, she opined that the deceased died of septicabmia due to burns. She was examined by the Investigating Officer. 13. PW11, in the course of his investigation, on receipt of telephonic message from one Shanmugam on 19.7.2009, arrested the accused near Samathuvapuram Bus Stop on Thiruvamoor to Kamatchipettai Road on being identified by Shanmugam. At that time, it was 3.30 PM. In the presence of PW7 and PW8, the confession statement of the accused was recorded, the admissible portion of which is marked as ExP9. Pursuant to ExP9 statement, PW11 took the accused, PW7 and PW8 to Reddiar Casuarina Thope situated near Thiruvamoor to Kamatchipettai Road. From there, the appellant took the kerosene can hidden by him. PW11 recovered it under seizure mahazar ExP8. The kerosene can is marked as MO3. The confession statement and seizure mahazar have been signed by PW7 and PW8. 14. PW7 was the Village Administrative Officer of Kamatchipettai during the relevant period. He had spoken to about the arrest of the accused, giving of confession statement and recovery of MO3. Though he turned hostile, in the cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted what he had stated before the Investigating Officer. PW8 was the Village Assistant during the relevant period and he had spoken to about the arrest, recording of confession statement of the accused and recovery of MO3 under a seizure mahazar. 15. PW11 returned to the police station with the accused and the material objects seized. PW8 was the Village Assistant during the relevant period and he had spoken to about the arrest, recording of confession statement of the accused and recovery of MO3 under a seizure mahazar. 15. PW11 returned to the police station with the accused and the material objects seized. The accused was produced before the Magistrate and the material objects were produced under Form 95. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. PW11 examined PW7 and PW8 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, on 22.7.2009, PW11 examined Packiaraj, Kaliyamurthi and Dr.Nagarajan – PW2 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, as the Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station reported for duty after leave and joined duty, he handed over the case diary files to him. 16. PW12 was the Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station. On 10.10.2009, he took up Cr.No.222 of 2009 for further investigation, perused the case diary and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Panruti took the charge sheet on file and on an examination of the records, as he found that the charge levelled against the accused is triable by the Sessions Court, he committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Cuddalore. The case was made over to the file of the Sessions Court (Mahalir Court), Cuddalore and the Trial Court framed the charges against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The same was read over to the accused. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the basis of the incriminating materials, he pleaded not guilty. He also pleaded that they are false and contrary to facts. As stated earlier, the accused neither adduced any oral evidence nor documentary evidence. 17. Heard both. 18. Mr.A.M.Rahamath Ali, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased would not have seen the appellant committing the act for the simple reason that she was fast asleep and that her statements are based on suspicion due to earlier incidents. Learned counsel pointed out that a perusal of ExP3, ExP4 and ExP10 shows that there were marked improvements leading to a reasonable suspicion that the statements of the deceased were due to the result of tutoring. Learned counsel pointed out that a perusal of ExP3, ExP4 and ExP10 shows that there were marked improvements leading to a reasonable suspicion that the statements of the deceased were due to the result of tutoring. According to the learned counsel, in ExP10 recorded by PW9, the deceased stated as if she ran after the assailant after she was set on fire, which is highly improbable and that since the deceased was nurturing ill-will towards the accused, there is every possibility of falsely implicating the accused due to enmity. Learned counsel pointed out that when admittedly PW1 – the mother of the deceased woke up only after hearing the screams of the deceased, she could not have seen the appellant setting fire on her and that the Court below has erred in believing the evidence of PW1. Learned counsel further pointed out that the motive attributed for the crime is flimsy and not proximate to the crime. Learned counsel also pointed out that PW1, in her evidence, had admitted that when the deceased was 15 years old, she had illicit intimacy with one Sampath and got married. But, thereafter, as the parents of Sampath did not accept the marriage, she was sent back to the house of PW1. PW1 had also admitted that the aforesaid marriage between the deceased and Sampath was not known to Packiaraj – the husband of the deceased. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the husband of the deceased, on coming to know about the said facts and aggrieved by the fact that the said facts were suppressed and the deceased was married to him, had got infuriated and caused the death of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the statements – ExP3, ExP4 and ExP10 made by the deceased are only due to tutoring of the deceased by PW1 and other relatives. Learned counsel pointed out that the Investigating Officer has not investigated the case in a proper angle to find out the possibility of the husband of the deceased committing the crime. Learned counsel further pointed out that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should have been granted to the appellant by the Trial Court. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in convicting him. 19. Learned counsel further pointed out that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should have been granted to the appellant by the Trial Court. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in convicting him. 19. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even in ExP3, the deceased had stated that the appellant had poured kerosene on her legs and set fire, which according to the learned counsel, will show that the appellant had no intention to cause the death of the deceased and that therefore, no offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and at best, the appellant can be convicted only under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code. 20. On the aforesaid submissions, we have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor also, who submitted that the occurrence had taken place at 1 AM on 12.7.2009. At 2.15 AM itself, the deceased had been admitted to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore and she was treated by the doctor – PW4 and the deceased, at the earliest point of time within 1½ hours from the time of occurrence, had stated to PW4 that her aunt's son had poured kerosene and set her on fire at 1 AM on 12.7.2009 while she was sleeping. At 4.30 AM on 12.7.2009, PW3 – the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore had recorded the dying declaration – ExP3 from the deceased wherein she has categorically stated that it was the appellant, who poured kerosene and set her on fire. In ExP10, the statement recorded by PW9 from the deceased, the deceased had repeated in substance what was stated in ExP3. The minor contradictions between ExP3 and ExP10 will not affect in any manner the root of the prosecution case. The dying declaration – ExP3 recorded admittedly within 1½ hours from the time of occurrence, after the doctor – PW4 certified that she was in a fit state of mind and was fully conscious to make the statement, deserves much credence. Further, the statement of the deceased is corroborated by the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. There is not much contradiction between the evidence of PW1 and ExP3 – dying declaration. Pursuant to the arrest of the appellant and ExP9 – the admissible portion of the confession statement of the appellant, MO3 – the kerosene can had been recovered. Further, the statement of the deceased is corroborated by the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. There is not much contradiction between the evidence of PW1 and ExP3 – dying declaration. Pursuant to the arrest of the appellant and ExP9 – the admissible portion of the confession statement of the appellant, MO3 – the kerosene can had been recovered. The arrest and recovery have been proved through the evidence of PW7 and PW8. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court has considered the entire evidence on record in a threadbare manner and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that when the appellant had poured kerosene over the body of the deceased, who was sleeping on the iron nylon rope cot and had set her on fire, coupled with the fact that there was enmity between the deceased and the appellant and that there was motive, it could be inferred that the appellant had the intention to cause the death of the deceased and that therefore, the conviction of the appellant by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has to be confirmed. 22. We have carefully considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 23. The occurrence had taken place at 1 AM on 12.7.2009. By 2.15 AM, the deceased had been taken to the emergency ward of the Government Hospital, Cuddalore where PW4 – the doctor treated her. PW4, in her evidence, had stated that the deceased was brought to the hospital by her sister – Kuppammal and that when examined, the deceased told her that her aunt's son poured kerosene and set her on fire while she was sleeping at 1 AM on 12.7.2009. ExP4 is the accident register wherein the doctor has made the aforesaid endorsement. Thus, it is clear that within 1½ hours from the time of occurrence, the deceased had made the aforesaid statement to the doctor. ExP4 is the accident register wherein the doctor has made the aforesaid endorsement. Thus, it is clear that within 1½ hours from the time of occurrence, the deceased had made the aforesaid statement to the doctor. When the deceased had suffered around 45 to 50% burn injuries and when she was suffering with severe pain, it cannot be presumed that she would have falsely implicated the accused leaving out the real culprit. 24. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that on coming to know about the illicit intimacy and the earlier marriage of the deceased with one Sampath when she was 15 years old, the husband of the deceased – Packiaraj got infuriated and he alone could have caused the death of the deceased, is based on no material on record. Further, it has to be pointed out that admittedly, the deceased and her husband – Packiaraj had lived together for nearly 10 years and had given birth to two children. It cannot be presumed that Packiaraj had no knowledge about the said relationship of the deceased with Sampath. It is hard to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that after a lapse of ten years, the husband of the deceased, on coming to know about the same, had caused her death. The said contention of the learned counsel, according to us, is a far-fetched contention. We are unable to countenance the same. 25. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are minor contradictions in between ExP3 and ExP10. ExP3 is in conformity with ExP4. As pointed out above, the endorsement contained in ExP4 came into existence within 1½ hours from the time of occurrence. ExP3 – dying declaration had been recorded within 3½ hours from the time of occurrence. There is no contradiction between ExP3 and ExP4. But of course, there is some contradiction between ExP3 and ExP10. While ExP3 has been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate after following the necessary procedure, ExP10 has been recorded by PW9 – the Sub-Inspector of Police, based on which, the first information report has been registered. The value to be attached to ExP10 is less than the value that has to be attached to ExP3. While ExP3 has been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate after following the necessary procedure, ExP10 has been recorded by PW9 – the Sub-Inspector of Police, based on which, the first information report has been registered. The value to be attached to ExP10 is less than the value that has to be attached to ExP3. There is no material contradiction in ExP3 and ExP10 regarding the identity of the person, who poured kerosene over the body of the deceased and set her on fire. There is some improvement in ExP10. ie. More details have been stated in ExP10. Further, the details found in ExP10, which were not found in ExP3, are not such which will discredit the trust worthiness or reliability of ExP3. 26. It is settled law that where several dying declarations have been made, the test is as to whether the version of the deceased is proved to be false in respect of the integral part of the case. Truth should be judged with respect to all the dying declarations made by the deceased. If one of the dying declarations is found to be untruthful, the Court should not readily accept the other. The Court should rely upon the first dying declaration only when there is convincing and adequate corroborative evidence. A perusal of ExP3, ExP4 and ExP10 does not show that there is any falsity in respect of the integral part of the case. In all the three statements, the deceased had consistently stated that it was the appellant, who poured kerosene on her at 1 AM on 12.7.2009, while she was sleeping on the cot in front of her house. It has been established by the evidence of PW6 and the contents of both the observation mahazar ExP6 and the rough sketch ExP12 that the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of the deceased. 27. The Investigating Officer had recovered the half burnt iron nylon rope cot from the scene of occurrence. Further, the evidence of PW1 corroborates the contents ExP3, ExP4 and ExP10. The contention that PW1 could not have witnessed the occurrence cannot be accepted for the simple reason that PW1 was sleeping near the cot wherein the deceased was sleeping. She has categorically stated that she saw the appellant walking near the cot about five times and thereafter, he poured kerosene and set her on fire. The contention that PW1 could not have witnessed the occurrence cannot be accepted for the simple reason that PW1 was sleeping near the cot wherein the deceased was sleeping. She has categorically stated that she saw the appellant walking near the cot about five times and thereafter, he poured kerosene and set her on fire. Nothing has been elicited in her cross examination to discredit her evidence. The contention that without attending to the burning daughter, she had gone to the house of the accused and knocked at the door, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, makes it doubtful whether she would have been actually present at the scene of occurrence and witnessed the actual occurrence. We cannot be sure about the minimum reaction of a person on seeing a particular occurrence. Different persons react differently in a particular situation. The mere fact that PW1 had gone and knocked at the door of the house of the accused without immediately attending to her daughter, will not in any way discredit her evidence. 28. Even in the absence of the evidence of PW1, this Court can act upon the dying declaration of the deceased. The rule requiring corroboration is a rule of prudence and has been held in a number of cases that there is no rule of law that the dying declaration should not be acted upon, unless it is corroborated. A dying declaration has to stand by itself or not at all. It cannot be contradicted by reference to extraneous evidence of the witnesses. The witnesses may exaggerate the facts or introduce fresh matters in evidence in order to aggravate the offence. However, that would not militate against the reliability of the dying declaration. The principle on which the dying declarations are admitted is indicated in the maxim of the law – Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur Mentire – a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth. 29. In the decision in the case of Munnuraja Vs. State of M.P. (reported in AIR 1976 SC 2199 ), the Apex Court has held that there is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. 30. In the decision in the case of V.S.More Vs. 29. In the decision in the case of Munnuraja Vs. State of M.P. (reported in AIR 1976 SC 2199 ), the Apex Court has held that there is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. 30. In the decision in the case of V.S.More Vs. State of Maharashtra (reported in AIR 1978 SC 519 ), the Apex Court laid down that if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, it can base conviction on it without corroboration. 31. In the decision in the case of Rasheed Beg Vs. State of M.P. (reported in 1974 (4) SCC 264 ), the Apex Court has held that where the dying declaration is suspicious, it cannot be acted upon without corroborative evidence. 32. On strictest scrutiny of the three dying declarations, namely ExP3, ExP4 and ExP10, we are convinced that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination and that the deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the appellant and was in a fit state of mind to make the declaration. As pointed out above, ExP4 and ExP3 have come into existence within 1½ hours and 3½ hours respectively from the time of occurrence and ExP3 has been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate after following all the necessary formalities and we do not find any reason whatsoever to doubt the genuineness of ExP3. Further, though corroboration is not necessary, in this case, ExP3 is corroborated by the evidence of PW1 and therefore, we are unable to countenance the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant, who has caused the death of the deceased by pouring kerosene on her and setting fire. 33. However, the question that further remains to be answered is as to whether the Court below is right in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 34. 33. However, the question that further remains to be answered is as to whether the Court below is right in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 34. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the motive alleged is flimsy and further in ExP3 – the dying declaration, the deceased herself had stated that after pouring kerosene, the appellant lit fire only on her leg and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the evidence of PW4 and PW5 show that on the upper part of the body, the deceased had not suffered any burn injuries and only the lower parts of the body had suffered burn injuries and the deceased had suffered only 45 to 50% burn injuries. Had the appellant intended to cause the death of the deceased, he would have poured kerosene all over her body and set her on fire. But, that has not been done. Therefore, learned counsel further submitted that the appellant had not intended to cause any particular injury having knowledge that such injury will cause death in the ordinary course. 35. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, in ExP3, the deceased had stated that the appellant, after pouring kerosene, had lit fire only on her leg. From the nature of injuries found in ExP4 – the accident register and the post mortem report – ExP5, the deceased has not sustained major burn injuries on the upper part of her body. The percentage of burn injuries was also only 45 to 50%. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the aforesaid facts do not show that the appellant had the intention to cause the death of the deceased. But at the same time, it cannot be said that he had not intended to cause serious injuries or had no knowledge that such burn injuries will not cause death in the ordinary course. 36. In this case, though the appellant has caused the death unintentionally, it is clearly established that he had caused the death knowingly. But at the same time, it cannot be said that he had not intended to cause serious injuries or had no knowledge that such burn injuries will not cause death in the ordinary course. 36. In this case, though the appellant has caused the death unintentionally, it is clearly established that he had caused the death knowingly. The appellant could be attributed with knowledge that if kerosene is poured over the body of the deceased and if she is set on fire, severe burn injuries will be caused, which will result in death and therefore, when the burn injuries sustained by the deceased are likely to cause the death and have been intentionally caused by the appellant by pouring kerosene and setting fire, which has resulted in the death of the victim, the case would fall under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Part-II. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court is not right in convicting the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 37. For the aforesaid reasons, the above criminal appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and he is convicted for the offence under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo seven years rigourous imprisonment. The fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the Trial Court shall stand confirmed. Consequently, the above MP is closed.