JUDGMENT 1. - By judgment dated 15.4.2005 learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur convicted the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In the event of default in payment of fine, the accused appellant is made liable to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that on 21.2.2004 at about 07:45 PM a statement made by Smt. Kailashi wife of Pushkarlal at Bed No. 9, Burn Ward, Maharana Bhupal Hospital, Udaipur, was reduced in writing by Head Constable Ram Singh of Police Station Sayara. As per the statement made by Smt. Kailashi, she entered into a wedlock at the instance of her father with Bherudas in quite young age, but she was not sent to her in-laws house. She then got married with Pushkarlal son of Mohandas Ranga Swami, resident of Diyan. Smt. Kailashi was staying with her father at Bagdunda. However, about 15 days earlier to the date of making statement she was taken to Diyan by Pushkarlal. In the morning of fateful day in-laws of Smt. Kailashi went to Sayara and at about 04:30 PM her husband Pushkarlal came to home after consuming some liquor. Pushkarlal stated that he do not want to keep Kailashi with him. He then gave beating to Kailashi and after pouring kerosene put her on fire. He also closed the door and did not open the same even on cry made by Kailashi for help. Several people then rushed to the spot and bring her out after breaking the door. While undergoing treatment, Kailashi died, thus, on basis of the statement reduced in writing a case was lodged and investigation commenced. 3. The investigating agency after completing the investigation, submitted a report as per provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. to the competent court, however, being a case session triable the same was committed to the court of Sessions. The Sessions court framed charge against accused Pushkar Das @ Ramesh for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 Indian Penal Code. On denial of the same, trial commenced as desired. 4. During the course of trial statements of 19 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-19) were recorded and several documents prepared during the course of investigation were exhibited. The Sessions court framed charge against accused Pushkar Das @ Ramesh for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 Indian Penal Code. On denial of the same, trial commenced as desired. 4. During the course of trial statements of 19 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-19) were recorded and several documents prepared during the course of investigation were exhibited. An opportunity was given to the accused appellant to explain the adverse and incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. The accused appellant termed the same as false with assertion that he was implicated in the case concerned due to vengeance. No evidence in defence was adduced. 5. The trial court after hearing learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused appellant held the accused guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, however, acquitted him from the charge pertaining to commission of offence punishable under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. 6. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned Amicus Curiae is that the instant one is a case of no evidence. It is asserted that the conviction of the accused appellant is based on the dying declaration that was made by Shri Ram Singh (PW-10) Head Constable of Police Station Sayara. As per learned counsel, such dying declaration is not at all acceptable to settle a conviction for the severest offence of murder. 7. On the other hand, submission of learned Public Prosecutor Shri Kalyan Ram Bishnoi is that the dying declaration made before Shri Ram Singh is treated and is free from any effort to prompt the deceased to make a statement, as such, there is no legal impediment in founding the conviction on such dying declaration. It is further submitted that deceased Smt. Kailashi was knowing accused Pushkar and disclosed his involvement in the crime at first available opportunity and the court after examining the same arrived at the conclusion that the dying declaration was truthful version and recorded conviction. Such definite dying declaration was rightly accepted by the trial court even in absence of corroboration. 8. Heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned Public Prosecutor. We have also pondered the entire evidence available on record. 9. Looking to the medical evidence available on record there is no doubt about homicidal death of Smt. Kailashi. 10. Such definite dying declaration was rightly accepted by the trial court even in absence of corroboration. 8. Heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned Public Prosecutor. We have also pondered the entire evidence available on record. 9. Looking to the medical evidence available on record there is no doubt about homicidal death of Smt. Kailashi. 10. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of dying declaration made by Smt. Kailashi before Shri Ram Singh (PW-10), Head Constable, in addition to several other eye witnesses who as a matter of fact have not supported the prosecution case in totality. 11. PW-1 Shri Deva Gameti was examined by the trial court on 6.12.2004. This witness in very definite terms stated that on the fateful day while involved in construction work of a road he heard a cry of a woman. He saw that from a nearby house smoke was coming out. He then rushed to the house and with the aid of Bhagga, Roda, Khema, Lakhmaram, Ramaram opened the tin door which was closed from out. On opening the door he found that a woman was there in severe burnt condition. She was brought out and wrapped in a woolen shawl of this witness. Accused Pushkar at that time was standing in a corner of the same room. The name of the woman was Kailashi, who stated that Pushkar poured kerosene and put her in fire. Necessary information was immediately given to the police and then Kailashi was taken to the hospital. This witness accompanied the police party to carry Smt. Kailashi, who died at Udaipur while undergoing treatment at Government hospital. After recording statement in chief of this witness, his cross examination was kept reserved due to non-availability of Malkhana on that day. Surprisingly enough, the remaining part of the statements of this witness were recorded on 30.3.2005 i.e. after a lapse of three months and 24 days. This witness in cross examination changed the entire story, and stated that whatever statement made by him earlier was not correct. In any case, even after such statement, the fact emerges out is that while working on road he saw smoke coming out from a nearby house, he rushed to the spot where he found a woman seriously burnt and at that time accused Pushkar was also standing in the same room in a corner. 12. In any case, even after such statement, the fact emerges out is that while working on road he saw smoke coming out from a nearby house, he rushed to the spot where he found a woman seriously burnt and at that time accused Pushkar was also standing in the same room in a corner. 12. A very important witness in this matter is PW-10 Shri Ram Singh, who reduced the statement of Smt. Kailashi in writing. As per this witness, on 21.2.2004 he was working as Head Constable at Police Station Sayara. At about 05:00 PM, on that day, he received a telephonic information that a fire has taken place in the house of Ranga Swami at village Diyan, wherein a woman is crying. On receiving this information, he along with the Station House Officer went to the spot of occurrence. He saw the house in burnt condition and a lady was lying out having several burns. The house was having a roof of earthen tiles. The lady was immediately taken to the Government Hospital at Udaipur and she was admitted there and her statement was recorded i.e. Ex.P/10. This witness put his signatures on the document Ex.P/10 and thumb impression of the lady was also taken in presence of Dr. Prashant Sevta. Dr. Prashant Sevta also put his signatures on document Ex.P/10. Ex.P/10 then was sent to the Police Station with constable Bhagwati Das, whose signatures too are available on the document. As per this witness, the woman brought to the hospital, stated that her husband poured kerosene and put her to fire. On asking by counsel for the accused, this witness stated that as per burnt woman the door was bolted by her husband. This witness also accepted that no certificate was taken by him from the doctor before reducing the statement of the burnt woman in writing. 13. On asking by counsel for the accused, this witness stated that as per burnt woman the door was bolted by her husband. This witness also accepted that no certificate was taken by him from the doctor before reducing the statement of the burnt woman in writing. 13. The document Ex.P/10 also deserves to be quoted and that reads as under:- " Jherh dSyk'kh iRuh Jh iq"djyky tkfr jaxk Lokeh mez 25 lky is'kk ?kj dk;Z o ekax j[ku R/o fn;k.k iqfyl Fkkuk lk;jk ftyk mn;iqj us c;ku fd;k fd esjh 15 lky iwoZ 'kknh okMlknM+h ukFk}kjk ds ikl Jh Hksnjkl ds lkFk eSa NksVh Fkh rc esjs firkth us djokbZ Fkh eSa llqjky ugha x;h vHkh esjs firkth us eq>s Jh iq"djyky iq= Jh eksgunkl jaxk Lokeh R/o fn;k.k iqfyl Fkkuk lk;jk ds lkFk dksVZ esa 'kknh ( ukrs ) djk;h eSa esjs firk Jh Jhnkl jaxk Lokeh ds ikl xkao djkbZ esa jg jgh Fkh vkt dy Msjk cxMawMk esa gS vHkh djhc 15 fnu igys esjs ifr us cxMwaMk vkdj eq>s tcjnLrh ysdj fn;k.k yk;kA vkt lqcg esjh lkl o llqj lk;jk x;s Fks fins ls esjk ifr 'kjkc ihdj 4-30 ih0,e0 ?kj vk;k o eq>s ekjihV djus yxk o dgk rq esjs ugha pkfg, o ?kj esa dsjkslhu dk fMCck ( dsu ) iM+h Fkh tks dsjkslhu esjs mij Mky eq>s ?kj esa can dj vkx yxk nh eSa fpYykbZ ij edku ugha [kksyk fQj xkao ls dkQh yksx nkSM+dj vk;s o fdokM+ rksM+dj vUnj vk;s o eq>s ckgj fudkykA vklikl ds dkQh yksx vk x;s FksA " 14. While impeaching conviction of the accused appellant, much emphasis is given by learned counsel that the statements reduced in writing does not bear confidence in view of the fact that no certificate was obtained about the health condition of the lady by PW-10 Ram Singh before recording her statement. 15. We have thoroughly examined the circumstances then existing. As per the evidence available on record, a smoke was seen in the house of the deceased and that was opened by certain labourers working on a nearby road. Those workers, including PW-1 Deva Gameti rushed to the house wherefrom smoke was coming out and the door was opened. On opening the door, a woman in fire was found and accused Pushkar at that time was standing in corner of the room. Those workers, including PW-1 Deva Gameti rushed to the house wherefrom smoke was coming out and the door was opened. On opening the door, a woman in fire was found and accused Pushkar at that time was standing in corner of the room. A telephonic information was given to the police and immediately thereafter the Station House Officer of Police Station Sayara along with Head Constable PW-10 Ram Singh came to the place of fire. A woman in burnt condition was lying there and she was carried by the police to Maharana Bhupal Hospital, Udaipur. At Udaipur, that lady stated before PW-10 that her husband Pushkar poured kerosene and put her to fire. The lady then died. The statement of deceased Kailashi was taken by PW-10 at earliest and that was in presence of Dr. Prashant Sevta. PW-10 Shri Ram Singh was accompanying the burnt lady from Diyan, therefore, his asking about the incident at Government Hospital in presence of doctor is quite natural. There is nothing on record on basis of that it can be said that the deceased was not in position to identify her own husband, the accused. The statement made by her quite shortly to the happening bears complete confidence and we also do not find any reason to disbelieve PW-10 Ram Singh, who reduced the statement in writing. 16. The important aspect of the matter is that even as per PW-1 Deva Gameti, Pushkar, the accused, at the time of incident was found in the room where Smt. Kailashi put to ablaze. No explanation is given by him as to how the fire took place and how the deceased suffered burn injuries. 17. Looking to all the facts noticed above, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the prosecution story. As such, the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded does not suffer from any wrong. 18. The appeal, therefore, is having no merit, hence dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******