JUDGMENT Dharnidhar Jha and Ashok Srivastava, JJ.—The solitary appellant Phool Singh, the husband of the deceased Smt. Ramkali, has appealed against his conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura on the 30th of April. 1983 in Session Trial No. 217 of 1982, by being convicted for committing offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. The appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. It is the written report. Ext. Ka-1 of P.W. 1 Chokhey Lal, which was the basis for the prosecution of the appellant. It was stated by P.W. 1 that the present appellant who was his full brother, was a man of bad habit, who used to indulge into a gambling and as a result thereof, had alienated immovable properties falling into his share. The appellant, at the same time, was an idler, who was the father of four little children and never went to work anywhere. The deceased, Ramkali used to impress upon him the need to labour so as to sustaining the life of the couple as also their children. But, the appellant used to retaliate his wife by beating her up. Counsel falling from his brothers also did not have any effect when the appellant used to be pointed out by them that his wife was right in asking him to work and labour for earning livelihood, else the appellant with his whole family would starve to death. 2. It is in the above background that it was alleged by P.W. 1. that about 10 days prior to the occurrence, the appellant was found assaulting his wife at about 6.00 p.m., when the informant and Roshan Lal (P.W. 3), a neighbour of the appellant, rushed alongwith others, like, Som Prasad, Omveer and Moti to intervene to save the lady from further being beaten up and also threatened the appellant on assaulting his wife. It was stated by the informant that on that particular day also the appellant had given out that he will end the life of the lady, who had become a perennial problem and a source of permanent harassment to him. The next day, the appellant is said to have dispatched the lady to the house of her father's sister at village Ujrai because her parents and other relatives from that side were fully supporting her. 3. The next day, the appellant is said to have dispatched the lady to the house of her father's sister at village Ujrai because her parents and other relatives from that side were fully supporting her. 3. After 5-6 days of that sending off of the lady by the appellant to village Ujrai, her full brother Ram Kishan (C.W.-1), came with the lady to the house of the appellant, but the appellant refused to allow her entry in his house and instead assaulted Ram Kishan (C.W.-1) and at that particular time also the younger brother of the informant, namely, Meen Lal and another neighbourer Moti alongwith the informant came there and pacified the appellant. It was stated that on that particular day also, the appellant had again threatened that he had to have some permanent solution for the problematic lady else she would not relent. 4. The final allegation, which was made in the written report, was that on 14.5.1982 at about 3.30 p.m., while the informant was at his Nohra, when a boy came and informed him that the appellant was assaulting his wife Ram Kali. The informant rushed to the house of the appellant and heard the cries coming out of it. Persons of the neighbourhood including Roshan Lal (P.W. 3) and Som Prasad had also arrived there and they all entered Inside the house when this appellant rushed out of it from its eastern room. The informant was asking the appellant as to why for, there was a commotion all around upon which the appellant was said to have stated that the informant and others did not have any business to enter inside his house and ran away from there. The informant stated that when he and others entered inside the room, they found Ram Kali moaning in pain in a burnt up condition and she was imploring the informant and others that her husband had burnt her and they should save her. The informant stated that he and others put water on her to extinguish the fire and came with written report Ext. Ka-1 to the police station. 5. On receipt of the written report, Ext. Ka-1, P.W. 4, Rajendra Singh, who was posted as the 3rd constable in police station, Sadabad, drew up the F.I.R., Ext. Ka-3, and prepared the copies thereof besides making relevant entries in the general diary. Ka-1 to the police station. 5. On receipt of the written report, Ext. Ka-1, P.W. 4, Rajendra Singh, who was posted as the 3rd constable in police station, Sadabad, drew up the F.I.R., Ext. Ka-3, and prepared the copies thereof besides making relevant entries in the general diary. The investigation was taken up by P.W. 8 S.I. N.P. Singh, who came to the place of occurrence by his official jeep and finding Smt. Ram Kali in a burnt up condition, sent her to hospital by his official jeep alongwith constable Nagendra Singh. He, thereafter, requested the Tehsildar. P.W. 6. Sri Chandrabhan Singh to come to the Hospital. Sadabad for recording the dying declaration of the deceased. 6. It may appear from the evidence of P.W. 6, Sri Chandrabhan Singh that he came to the hospital in the light of the requisition he had received on 4.5.1982 in the form of memo (Ext. Ka-8) and on reaching there he found Smt. Ram Kali lying in the hospital in a burnt up condition. P.W. 6 stated that the deceased was quite conscious and had the capability of hearing and understanding things and was in a position to reply to the queries. P.W. 6, thereafter, asked the doctor to certify about the state of health both physical and mental, of the deceased and accordingly, the relevant certificate was granted by P.W. 7. Dr. Chotey Singh in the form of Ext. Ka-9 which indicated that Ram Kali was in full senses to speak at that particular time, i.e., around 6.10 p.m. on 14.5.1982. P.W. 6. thereafter recorded the dying declaration of Smt. Ram Kali in the form of Ext. -9. 7. P.W. 8. S. I. N. P. Singh himself also recorded the statement of the deceased Ram Kali, prior to her dying declaration being recorded by P.W. 6 and came to the place of occurrence to inspect the same, as pointed out by P.W. 1, the informant Chokhey Lal. -9. 7. P.W. 8. S. I. N. P. Singh himself also recorded the statement of the deceased Ram Kali, prior to her dying declaration being recorded by P.W. 6 and came to the place of occurrence to inspect the same, as pointed out by P.W. 1, the informant Chokhey Lal. We have the site plan before us which was prepared by P.W. 8 during the inspection of the place of occurrence as also per evidence of P.W. 8 paragraph-5, he found the lady in a burnt up condition in a room, in which a bottle quarter filled with kerosene oil, a can which was containing about 1.5 litres of the same commodity, as also some partially burnt cloth besides a few pieces of fuel woods and a match box, were lying around. Those articles were seized by P.W. 8 by preparing the seizure memo Ext, Ka-2 in presence of P.W. 3 Roshan Lal and another witness Shiv Prasad whose statements were also recorded by the Investigating Officer. He recorded the statement of Suraj Pal who had scribed the written report besides recording the statements of other witnesses and thereafter searched for the present appellant who had run away from the scene of occurrence. P.W. 8 stated that the condition of the lady being precarious, he ensured that she was forwarded to S. N. Hospital, Agra for treatment and, accordingly, ensured her dispatched to that particular hospital where she appears dying. As such, the postmortem examination was held there on 21st of May, 1982 at about 8.20 a.m. as appears from post-mortem examination report Ext. Ka-20. P.W. 8 found material sufficient for forwarding the present appellant for his trial who had surrendered himself to the custody of the Court and accordingly the trial ended in the present impugned judgment. 8. We did not find any particular defence being taken up by the appellant except that some questions were put to the court witness. Ram Kishan (C.W. 1), which may suggest as if the lady were frustrated due to the torturous behaviour meted out to her by the appellant and she had killed herself by putting herself at fire. 9. In support of the cbarges, the prosecution examined a total number of 8 witnesses and the Court also examined Ram Kishan (C.W. 1) as its own witness. Ram Kishan (C.W. 1) was the full brother of deceased Smt. Ram Kali. 9. In support of the cbarges, the prosecution examined a total number of 8 witnesses and the Court also examined Ram Kishan (C.W. 1) as its own witness. Ram Kishan (C.W. 1) was the full brother of deceased Smt. Ram Kali. So far as P.W. 1, Chokhey Lal, the informant who had filed the written report is concerned, he was resiling from the fact that he had filed a written report and was instead stating In Court that the Officer Incharge of the police station had obtained his thumb impression on some drafted petition and he had not dictated the contents of Ext. Ka-1 to P.W. 2. P.W. 2. Suraj Pal had though stated that he had taken the dictation as regards the contents of Ext. Ka-1 from P.W. 1 Chokhey Lal and accordingly, had read the contents over to P.W. 1, where after he had put his L.T.I. over it. But, when he came to the main part of the occurrence, he stated that he had not seen the real occurrence with his own eyes and also had not gone to the house of the appellant after having heard the cries of the lady. He was declared hostile on account of not supporting the fact of going to the house of the appellant on the cries of deceased to find the lady in a burnt up condition and further, that he had found the appellant running away from there. Though he was stating in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that Ram Kali was shifted to Sahabad Hospital and he knew about it that she had been admitted into it. P.W. 3, Roshan Lal was a neighbour of the appellant and he had supported the prosecution story on all its material parts. As regards the other witnesses, P.Ws. 4 and 5, who were police constables, who had respectively drawn up the F.I.R. of the present case and an earlier F.I.R. which was lodged by C. W. 1 Ram Kishan. Ext. Ka-6 in respect of the incident which had taken place 4/5 days prior to the present occurrence when the deceased and C.W. 1 had been assaulted by the appellant when C.W. 1 brought her sister to the house of the appellant. Dr. Chotey Singh. P.W. 7 had examined the injured after she was admitted in Sahabad Hospital and had issued the medical report, Ext. Ka-10. Dr. Chotey Singh. P.W. 7 had examined the injured after she was admitted in Sahabad Hospital and had issued the medical report, Ext. Ka-10. We have already pointed out that the case was investigated by P.W. 8, S. I. N. P. Singh. 10. The main thrust of the argument of Sri Vinay Saran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was that the dying declaration, Ext. Ka-9 was not properly recorded and smacked of fabrication or some other features which could render it not acceptable or fit to be relied upon. It was contended that the document was in a question-answer form and in his cross-examination P.W. 6, had admitted that he had put some other questions also, but did not record the answers to those questions. It was next contended in the above connection that the physical state of the lady indicated as if she could not have been in a position to speak and the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 7, also indicated that her condition was very low. It was contended that one of the criterion for accepting the dying declaration as a piece of evidence was the fit state of physical and mental health of the victim and that being in doubt this Court should reject the evidence. In support of the above contention Sri Vinay Saran learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed before us a Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2003 on 11.2.2010, which was rendered by one of us (D. Jha, J.) in the case of Sukhdeo Sah and another v. State of Bihar. Reliance has been placed on some of the observations made by that particular court in paragraph 15 of the said judgment. It was also contended that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence and Roshan Lal (P.W. 3) could not also be relied upon for sustaining the corroboration to the dying declaration and thereby to sustain the order of conviction and sentence. 11. Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. was submitting that the conduct of the appellant is not only alleged rather it is documented and his conduct appears forming the part of the transaction, which had resulted in the death of the deceased. 11. Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. was submitting that the conduct of the appellant is not only alleged rather it is documented and his conduct appears forming the part of the transaction, which had resulted in the death of the deceased. It was contended that the dying declaration was properly recorded and was a good document which could be used for sustaining the commission and further that the same was getting corroboration from circumstances, which included the oral utterances of the lady when P.W. 3 and other had entered inside the room. Previous conduct of the appellant of indulging in gambling or in torturing and thereby to squander his property and assaulting the lady when she was objecting to those behaviour and further circumstances enforced the act of commission of offence. It was next contended that it was the most brutal murder of the lady who was not only the mother of four children but who was also carrying a foetus of about five months in her womb. Sri Srivastava also submitting that the sentence was deficient in that term. 12. If the Court is inclined to place reliance upon such an evidence which is admissible u/s 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, then it has to satisfy about many circumstances, like : (1) the victim had the opportunity of seeing and identifying the perpetrator of the offence, if the offence was committed in night or deficient light, (2) the victim was fit physically and mentally to make statement and, (3) there was no chance of tutoring the victim so as to influencing her statement for implicating any innocent person. 13. These circumstances have to be looked for by a Court because the evidence u/s 32 (1) being almost of conclusive nature, may be sufficient by itself to sustain an order of conviction. Here, in the present case, it was not that the culprit and the victim were unknown to each other. The relationship was of wife and husband and the incident was occurring in day time at about 3.30 p.m. on a day in the month of May and as such the first circumstance which we have just noted regarding the acceptability of the dying declaration could not be causing any hindrance as regards the acceptance of Ext. Ka-9, the dying declaration. Ka-9, the dying declaration. The most important of the ingredients for admitting such piece of evidence is the state of physical and mental health of the victim and that part was also highlighted by the Patna High Court in the cited judgment before us in Sukhdeo Sah (supra) in its paragraph 15 when that Court was observing that the deceased should be in a fit state of mind and health so as to making dying declaration or any such statement. For determining the above ingredients for admitting the evidence of a dead person, the Court generally relies upon persons who could be present there or by the production of evidence of a competent person or the other, like, the Doctor, who could be attending on such a victim. We have before us the evidence unimpeachable in character and admitted also that the victim was shifted and admitted into Sadabad Hospital. This evidence comes, firstly, from P.W. 8, S.I. N. P. Singh in paragraph 1 of his evidence when he stated that he had shifted the victim by his own official vehicle to the hospital through constable Nagendra Singh and she was admitted there. Smt. Ram Kali was attended on by doctor Chotey Singh, P.W. 7. His evidence is available to us at page 42 of the paper book and after considering it what we find is that in spite of burn injuries the deceased was found by P.W. 7 in a fit state of health to make statement. This appears recorded also in the medical report prepared by him which has been marked Ext. Ka-10, which is available to us at page 6 of the paper book. The very first line of that particular document revealed that the victim had pointed out her name, name of her husband and her age also alongwith other details, like, the place of residence, the police station and district to P.W. 7, Dr. Chotey Singh. The Doctor had put down these informations being told to him within the parenthesis in which it is written "as patient herself stated". Thus, from this record which was made by P.W. 7 on Ext. Ka-10, we could also reach a conclusion that the lady was fit by her mental health to speak when P.W. 7 was attending upon her. The Doctor had put down these informations being told to him within the parenthesis in which it is written "as patient herself stated". Thus, from this record which was made by P.W. 7 on Ext. Ka-10, we could also reach a conclusion that the lady was fit by her mental health to speak when P.W. 7 was attending upon her. Not only that when P.W. 6 Sri Chandrabhan Singh, the Tehsildar of Sadabad, arrived at the hospital in view of the request made by P.W. 8 S. I. N. P. Singh for recording the dying declaration, what he did was to ascertain the identification of the victim from P.W. 7 Dr. Chotey Singh and, thereafter, he obtained the certificate from him regarding the victim being in fit state of her mental health. The dying declaration recorded by P.W. 6 is Ext. Ka-9 and that is available to us at page No. 6 of the paper book and that particular certificate by P.W. 7 appears some where on the left top margin of the recorded dying declaration and has been marked Ext. Ka-9A. The Doctor had certified that Smt. Ram Kali was in full senses to speak at that particular time. This fact had been stated by P.W. 7 also in his evidence in Court to a question put by the defence in cross-examination which appears in paragraph 8 of P.W. 7. There is no challenge to that particular certificate or statement of P.W. 7 that Smt. Ram Kali was in her full senses to make statement by the defence. Thus, we do not see any reason, not to hold that Smt. Ram Kali was in a fit state of health, including her mental health, so as to making the relevant statement. 14. Not only the above evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Chotey Singh, we have before us the evidence of P.W. 3, Roshan Lal, who had been attracted to the house while he was passing by the road situated in front of the house of the deceased while he was coming from his tailoring shop to attend an engagement function which was likely to be held in that particular evening in some of his relative's house. He stated that hearing the cries, he also came to the house of the appellants alongwith P.W. 1 and others, went to that particular room when this appellant rushed out from inside by giving a push to them and when P.W. 3 and others reached inside it they found the lady lying there in a burnt up condition who was shouting and telling them that it was this appellant who had poured kerosene oil and set her at fire. P.W. 3 had also stated about the presence of Kerosene oil in a bottle or in a container as also some pieces of wood and a match box. During his cross-examination, he had stated that he also poured water on the lady as may appear from paragraph-18 of his evidence and further stated in paragraphs 23 and 24 as also in paragraph 26 as to what articles were found in that particular room and what was the state of the lady after she had been burnt as may appear from paragraph 26. Curiously enough in a lengthy cross-examination of P.W. 3, the defence was again not suggesting to him by way of challenging the claim of the witnesses that the lady had not made any statement regarding being burnt by the present appellant. 15. While castigating the document Ext. Ka-9, an attempt was made by Sri Vinay Saran by drawing our attention towards the original written document to impress upon us that the document was not a sanctified document and, as such, it could not be attached that authenticity as is required to be attached for utilising it as a piece of admissible, reliable evidence. The main thrust of argument was on the very first line that "Aag Kaise Lagi". The main thrust of the argument was that these words were subsequent additions. This argument was further attempted to be buttressed by taking us to the cross-examination part of P.W. 6 which appears at pages 39 and 40 when the witness Sri Chandrabhan Singh (P.W. 6) was pointing out that in order to reaching a particular conclusion, he had to put several questions to the lady before he recorded her answers as appears in Ext. Ka-9. Ka-9. He was making specific statement in paragraph 2 that the lady was fully conscious and was in a fit state of health for understanding and replying to the questions, but because she was not replying to certain reasonable questions or was replying to one particular question in a particular way or manner, so he was putting several questions as supplementary to appreciate the correct import of her statement. To elucidate, he was pointing out that when he put a question as to who had put her up at fire, the lady was pointing "Unane" and for clarifying that answer, he was putting another question as to did it mean her husband? He was stating that he had to do it because in rural areas ladies, by tradition, were averse to taking the name of their husband so he had to put a clear question by putting forth the name of her husband. Likewise, when he did not get any reply to the first question as to how she caught fire he left two crosses at the place of reply as the answer was not forthcoming. We are fully satisfied after having gone through the evidence of P.W. 6. Sri Chandrabhan Singh, when he was stating to the Court that for getting to the right answer he had to put supplementary questions which he had not recorded in Ext. Ka-9, was not such an omission or act which could render the very document Ext. Ka-9 suspect document which was created so as to favouring the prosecution. We have in fact after considering the contents of Ext. Ka-9 and the manner in which it was recorded, as indicated by the evidence of P.W. 6, clearly of the opinion that the document inspired our confidence and was fit to be acted upon. More over it is too well known to be pointed out that there is no particular pattern of recording the dying declaration. At this stage Sri Vinay Saran learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed before us, Arjun Prajapati vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2001) 9 SCC 252 , to submit that the dying declaration which was written by P.W. 6 was a suspect document. At this stage Sri Vinay Saran learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed before us, Arjun Prajapati vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2001) 9 SCC 252 , to submit that the dying declaration which was written by P.W. 6 was a suspect document. In Arjun Prajapati (supra), the dying declaration was held to be suspect on the very basis of not fulfilling the criteria of admitting the document as may appear from the short judgment in that case. The Judicial Magistrate who had...... deposed to recording the dying declaration admitted that he himself did not record the document rather the same was in Hindi written by someone else and he merely put a certificate of the document being recorded by him. The inks of the main document and that of his certificate and signature were different. We cannot show better deference to the above judgment of the Supreme Court than to point out that the person who deposes to a dying declaration must depose that he had written the dying declaration himself as told to him by the deceased word-by-word else it could not be admissible u/s 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act. In other words, for admitting a document, the writer of the document has to depose on oath that he himself recorded the document word by word as told to him by the deceased, and should have produced that record before the trial court. It was not the case in Arjun Prajapati (supra) and, as such, we are unable to follow that particular judgment as the same appears distinguishable on its very facts. 16. We have other evidence which could be sufficient to record the judgment of conviction or to uphold the impugned judgment. It is true that P.W. 1. Chokhey Lal, the informant, was not supporting his written report, but, it was definitely dictated by him to P.W. 2 Suraj Pal. It appears from his evidence that there was some report lodged by the brother of Ram Kali, i.e., C.W. 1 against the present appellant for having assaulted the deceased Ram Kali when she had been brought to the village, particularly to the house of the appellant after she had been left at the house of P.W. 1 and since then she was residing there. C.W. 1 Ram Kishan had stated that Ram Kali was the mother of four children and that the present appellant had cultivated bad habits since 4-5 years back. He had turned a drunkard and was a gambler also and for continuing his pastime he had mortgaged his house also. His sister (deceased) used to object to it and had told the appellant not to flounder his property else what would be the fate of their children. C.W. 1, stated that he also had talked to the appellant, but he had turned his deaf ears to his counselling as a result of which C.W. 1 stopped visiting him for the last about three years. It was stated by C. W. 1 that 4-5 days prior to the occurrence the appellant and the deceased had come to his house and the appellant in anger had asked Ram Kishan not to bring back his sister to his house, else he will assault her, still C.W. 1 brought his sister to the appellant's house. But, he refused to allow her entry in his house and asked C.W. 1 to take her back. C.W. 1 also stated that the appellant had also assaulted his sister as a result of which he filed a report with the police, which report has been proved by C.W. 1 and P.W. 5 Ziaul Hassan as Ext. Ka-6. C.W. 1 stated that after the report was lodged the police sent both C.W. 1 and the deceased Ram Kali to the house of the appellant, but the appellant was not ready to accept her. It was stated by C.W. 1 that the family members of the appellant asked C.W. 1 to leave Ram Kali with them and they will persuade the appellant to keep the lady and accordingly, he left her at the house of P.W. 1 and Mahilal, the other brother of the appellant and himself went back to his house. C.W. 1 stated that he again came back on the next day to enquire about the behaviour of the appellant when he was told by Mahilal and others that things will return to normalcy and that the lady was residing in the house of the appellant. C.W. 1 stated that he lived there for a few days and on the third day of his return, he learnt his sister had been killed. 17. C.W. 1 stated that he lived there for a few days and on the third day of his return, he learnt his sister had been killed. 17. Thus, what appears from the evidence of C.W. 1 is that the appellant was not treating his wife well on account of his bad behaviour which was being objected to by the lady. The appellant had sold out his properties and he had mortgaged his residential house too. The postmortem examination report indicates that the lady was carrying foetus of five months in her womb and she had four children from the appellant. She was also counselling the appellant not to flounder his properties in the interest of their children and it appears that on account of this particular reason the appellant was treating the lady harshly and was not hesitating to assault her. Ill-treatment was so much so that Ext. Ka-6, was drawn up by the police on the report of C.W. 1 when the lady was assaulted by the appellant when she was brought back to the house of the appellant. 18. P.W. 3, the immediate neighbour of the appellant, has deposed to the fact that when he was coming from his tailoring shop to his house and when he was at a distance of 15-16 steps from the house of the appellant, which was very much on the road side, he heard the cries coming out of it and he ran and saw that P.W. 1 and others were standing there. He further saw that Ram Kali was lying in the room in a burnt up condition and was shouting that it was her husband who poured kerosene oil and killed her and was requesting all present there to save her. He also found a match box, a container of kerosene oil, as also a bottle partially containing kerosene oil and a few pieces of wood and other such materials. P.W. 3 stated that as soon as he and others entered inside the room this appellant ran away from there. It is by a long cross-examination P.W. 3 was subjected to that an attempt was made by the defence to indict him of being partisan being an interested witness. But we find that he was a competent witness. P.W. 3 stated that as soon as he and others entered inside the room this appellant ran away from there. It is by a long cross-examination P.W. 3 was subjected to that an attempt was made by the defence to indict him of being partisan being an interested witness. But we find that he was a competent witness. P.W. 3 had also stated that the relationship between the appellant and his wife was not cordial and further that the appellant used to assault her regularly. He had given the reason for ill-treating the deceased by the appellant and those were the same bad habits, he had fallen in. Due to those bad habits of gambling and drinking, he had sold his properties, which was objected to by the deceased for the sake of her children. P.W. 3 had stated that it was a regular phenomena and a report was also made by the deceased and her brother with the police. The evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Chotey Singh also indicates that the lady was brought to the hospital with burn injuries and the pattern of the injuries indicated that the lady was put on the ground and thereafter was burnt forcibly. The back part of her head with lock of hairs there and the lower limbs on there major parts were badly affected by burn injuries. The upper limbs were burnt only partially but in most of its part, likewise, the burn was extending from the face up to upper part of the thigh. This description given by P.W. 7 Dr. Chotey Singh, clearly indicates that the lady was put on the ground and was burnt thereafter. This is the reason that the appellant was also having burn in his hands because he had forced the lady to be there, lying on the ground. The solitary evidence of P.W. 3 with that of P.W. 7 Dr. Chotey Singh clearly indicates that it was this appellant who had committed the acts. Thus the evidence of P.W. 3. C.W. 1 and P.W. 7 Dr. Chotey Singh clearly indicates the circumstances under which the lady was burnt and ultimately she died of those burn injuries. The Investigating Officer had also given supporting evidence of finding the incriminating articles, like, the kerosene oil, the match box and other articles at the place of occurrence. Thus the evidence of P.W. 3. C.W. 1 and P.W. 7 Dr. Chotey Singh clearly indicates the circumstances under which the lady was burnt and ultimately she died of those burn injuries. The Investigating Officer had also given supporting evidence of finding the incriminating articles, like, the kerosene oil, the match box and other articles at the place of occurrence. Thus, what we find is that the judgment of conviction was rightly passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Let the appellant surrender to his bond to serve out the sentence.