JUDGMENT: Per D.N. Patel, J.- 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th August, 2002 and 19th August, 2002 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1991/76 of 2001, whereby, the present appellants have been punished for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498A to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is a case of the prosecution that on 27th April, 1997 at about 05:45 p.m., the informant, namely, Titu Devi (later on expired) gave fardbeyan to police at Poddar Nursing Home, Jamtara that on 27th April, 1997 at about 10:00 a.m., when she was in her house, her mothering law, who is appellant no. 1, poured kerosene oil and her father-in-law, who is appellant no. 2, was abetting her and sister of her mother-in-law had caught her, thereafter, her mother-in-law set fire on her cloth and threw the same on her body. Thus, she was set at fire by these appellants. She also stated that her husband was not in the house. The motive has also been stated by Titu Devi in her fardbeyan before the police at Nursing Home that she had no issue after marriage and, therefore, the appellants and the sister of her mother-in-law were insisting that she must go at her paternal house. They were also quarreling with her and, therefore, they set fire on her. Dying declaration was also recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. The case was investigated. The statements of several witnesses were recorded. Charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to Sessions Court and on the basis of evidences on record, given by the witnesses, the learned trial court has punished the appellants for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are also punished for three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1991/76 of 2001, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1991/76 of 2001, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt. There are major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and, hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deposition of P.W. 1 is having a major contradiction, looking to the deposition of P.W.6 because he has never stated before the police that when he reached at Poddar Nursing Home, his daughter had told him that these appellants had set fire on her. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the doctor, who has carried out postmortem of the deceased, has not been examined and, therefore, the fact of culpable homicide is not proved and, therefore also, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. We have heard learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, who has submitted that the prosecution has proved the offence of murder, committed by the appellants, beyond reasonable doubt. Initially, the injured Titu Devi was admitted to Poddar Nursing Home, where, she gave fardbeyan before the police, in which, she has clearly stated that the present appellants had ablaze her and, thereafter, dying declaration was also recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. This has been stated by P.W.5 with an endorsement of doctor about consciousness of the deceased. Thus looking to the dying declaration, one is F.I.R. and another is recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, it reveals that the present appellants have committed murder of Titu Devi. P.W.3Dr. R.K. Poddar, initially who has given treatment to Titu Devi, has also narrated the injuries sustained by Titu Devi, in detail. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that looking to the evidence given by the Investigating OfficerP.W.6, it appears that he has clearly narrated that the fardbeyan was recorded in his presence and she had clearly narrated before her death that appellant no. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that looking to the evidence given by the Investigating OfficerP.W.6, it appears that he has clearly narrated that the fardbeyan was recorded in his presence and she had clearly narrated before her death that appellant no. 1 set fire on cloth and such cloth was thrown on her body and appellant no. 2 was instigating appellant no. 1 and the sister of mother-in-law of the deceased had caught her. This is how the whole incident has been narrated in the fardbeyan, as per P.W.6. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that the Investigating Officer has visited the place of scene of offence, from where, burnt cloth as well as partly burnt saree of the deceased were recovered. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that the doctor, who has carried out postmortem, has not been examined, but, P.W.8 has stated that he knows the doctor and he also knows his handwriting. Postmortem report, which is at Exhibit4, is in the handwriting of Dr. Ajay Kumar and, therefore, correctly postmortem report is marked as Exhibit4. Looking to the evidences on record, no error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating these evidences on record and in convicting the appellants and, therefore, the present appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that: (i) The whole incident has taken place on 27th April, 1997 at about 10:00 a.m., when deceased Titu Devi was at her home, her mother-in-law, who is appellant no. 1, had set fire on cloth and threw the same on the body of Titu Devi and father-in-law (appellant no. 2) was abetting her and sister of mother-in-law, namely, Kalyani had caught Titu Devi. After getting burn injuries, she was brought to Poddar Nursing Home, where, she gave fardbeyan to the police on 27th April, 1997, which is in the form of dying declaration. In the fardbeyan, she has clearly stated that the appellants have set fire on her body. Immediately, P.W.1 has rushed to Poddar Nursing Home. Looking to the deposition of P.W.1, who is father of the deceased, it appears that he has also stated that she was admitted to Poddar Nursing Home, she has sustained burn injuries and she had also conveyed him that appellant no. Immediately, P.W.1 has rushed to Poddar Nursing Home. Looking to the deposition of P.W.1, who is father of the deceased, it appears that he has also stated that she was admitted to Poddar Nursing Home, she has sustained burn injuries and she had also conveyed him that appellant no. 1 set fire on cloth and threw the same on her body and appellant no. 2 was instigating appellant no. 1 and sister of mother-in-law had caught her. Thus looking to the First Information Report, it appears that Titu Devi has clearly narrated the whole incident in her own language to the police, before her death. (ii) Looking to the deposition of P.W.2, who is brother of Titu Devi, he has also narrated that he reached to the Poddar Nursing Home on the next day of incident and his sister has stated before him that these appellants have set fire on her. Looking to the cross examination of P.W.2, nothing is coming out in favour of the appellants. Looking to the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it appears that without any exaggeration, they have narrated the whole incident. They have narrated in their depositions, what is conveyed to them by Titu Devi. We have no reason to disbelieve P.W.1 and P.W.2. (iii) Looking to the deposition of P.W.3Dr. R.K. Poddar, who has initially examined Titu Devi in Poddar Nursing Home on the very day of incident at evening hours, it appears that he has proved the injuries report, which is at Exhibit1. It has been stated by the doctor that she has sustained following injuries: “(a) Burn in Right lower extremity15% about (b) Burn in Left lower extremity15% about (c) Burn in buttock and back15% about (d) Burn in lower abdomen9% about (e) Burn in Perinium1% about (f) Burn in right elbow2% about (g) Burn in left elbow3% about (h) Burned, black, curled, twisted, few hairs on right side of head. Nature of Injury Burn is more than 60% (sixty percent) therefore, it is fatal. That's why, it is grievous. Duration of Injury Vesication was there that's why it is within 36 hrs. Caused by – Heat Marks of Identification 1. Black mole on left side of nose. 2. Nature of Injury Burn is more than 60% (sixty percent) therefore, it is fatal. That's why, it is grievous. Duration of Injury Vesication was there that's why it is within 36 hrs. Caused by – Heat Marks of Identification 1. Black mole on left side of nose. 2. Black mole on left side of neck.” In view of the aforesaid deposition of P.W.3, it appears that he has proved the injury report and he has stated that injuries were fatal, in nature and they were sufficient for causing death to the deceased in ordinary course of nature. (iv) Looking to the deposition of P.W.4, who is a formal witness, he has proved that fardbeyan was in the handwriting and signature of one Sri Mukesh Chandra Kunwar, who is the Investigating Officer of the case and he has also proved that the fardbeyan is in the handwriting and signature of Mukesh Chandra Kunwar. P.W.5 has proved the dying declaration of the deceased Titu Devi in the handwriting and signature of Judicial Magistrate. We have perused the lower court records. The said dying declaration is recorded by Sri Prabhunath Singh, Judicial Magistrate. There is also an endorsement of the doctor. It is stated in the dying declaration that “This is to certify that Smt. Titu Mahtain, W/o Sri Golakh Mahto village Machiadih (Kola Dabae), Jamtara, is in a condition to give her statement before the Magistrate”. This has been signed by the doctor on 30th April, 1997 and, thereafter, the dying declaration starts which is in the hindi language. She has clearly stated that her mother-in-law, sister of mother-in-law and father-in-law had set fire on her. It appears from the records and proceedings that by error, the learned trial court has not given exhibit number to this document, but, P.W.5 has clearly stated that the dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. Exhibit No.3 has been given to the First Information Report by the learned trial court, but, in fact it should have been given to this document. It is a clear dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate involving the present appellants for setting fire on Titu Devi and because of the injuries, she expired. (v) Looking to the deposition of P.W.6Mukesh Chandra Kunwar, who is the Investigating Officer, who has clearly stated that the fardbeyan of Titu Devi was recorded in hospital by him. It is a clear dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate involving the present appellants for setting fire on Titu Devi and because of the injuries, she expired. (v) Looking to the deposition of P.W.6Mukesh Chandra Kunwar, who is the Investigating Officer, who has clearly stated that the fardbeyan of Titu Devi was recorded in hospital by him. He has proved fardbeyan, which is marked as Exhibit3. P.W.6 has also stated in paragraph 3 of his deposition that separate dying declaration was also recorded. Thus, not only the First Information Report, which is at Exhibit3 is a dying declaration, but, as per “paragraph 1” of the deposition of P.W.5 and as per “paragraph 3” of the deposition of P.W.6, there is separate dying declaration, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. It has also been given Exhibit no. 3 by mistake, but, the fact remains that there are two dying declarations on record, one is fardbeyan, recorded by the police and second one which is recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, as stated hereinabove. (vi) Looking to the deposition of P.W.8, who has proved that the postmortem report is in the handwriting and signature of Dr. Ajay Kumar and he knows the handwriting and signature of Dr. Ajay Kumar and, therefore, postmortem report is correctly given Exhibit4. (vii) Looking to these evidences on record and looking to the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses, we have no reason to disbelieve prosecution witnesses, especially P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 before whom Titu Devi had narrated that the appellants had set fire on her. Moreover looking to the depositions of P.W.5 and P.W.6, it appears that there is separate dying declaration, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, as stated hereinabove. Looking to the dying declaration, there is also endorsement of the doctor about the consciousness of Titu Devi as on 30th April, 1997. Looking to these two documents and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, the dying declaration is reliable document, which has been proved by the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. (viii) The defence has also examined defence witness nos. 1 to 5. Looking to these two documents and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, the dying declaration is reliable document, which has been proved by the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. (viii) The defence has also examined defence witness nos. 1 to 5. Looking to the depositions of the defence witnesses, one fact is emerged out of this evidence that the deceased has expired due to burn injuries and moreover the statements of the witnesses were also not recorded by the police, even otherwise also, the statement of Titu Devi, which has been recorded in the hospital by P.W.6 is so clear and it clearly narrates that appellant no. 1 had set fire on cloth and threw the same on the body of Titu Devi and appellant no. 2 was instigating appellant no. 1 and the sister of mother-in-law of Titu Devi had caught Titu Devi and moreover looking to the dying declaration before the Judicial Magistrate, which is also having endorsement of doctor about the consciousness of Titu Devi. In this dying declaration also, it has been narrated that the deceased was set at fire by these appellants. Moreover, P.W.2 has also stated that when he reached to the Poddar Nursing Home, Titu Devi has also stated before him that the appellants set Titu Devi on fire. This is how, she has sustained burn injuries, who expired later on. These documents and evidences have been correctly appreciated by the trial court. One fact is to be noticed here that the learned trial court has not given exhibit number to the dying declaration, recorded by the Judaical Magistrate, namely, Sri Prabhu Nath Singh, which has been referred by P.W.1 in paragraph 1 of his deposition and it has also been referred by P.W.6 in paragraph 3 of his deposition. In fact, this document should have been given separate exhibit number, but, it appears that the First Information Report is given same exhibit number, which is exhibit no. 3, during the deposition of P.W.5 and during the deposition of P.W.6. This error could have been avoided, even with the help of learned Additional Public Prosecutor of the trial court. In fact, this document should have been given separate exhibit number, but, it appears that the First Information Report is given same exhibit number, which is exhibit no. 3, during the deposition of P.W.5 and during the deposition of P.W.6. This error could have been avoided, even with the help of learned Additional Public Prosecutor of the trial court. This type of error should not have been committed by the trial court that a document, which is already on record in the form of dying declaration should have been given separate exhibit number, which has been referred by two witnesses i.e. P.W.5 and P.W.6. We have perused the records and proceedings, in detail and, therefore, we could find that the dying declaration referred by P.W.5 and P.W.6 is also on record, but, this type of error of exhibit numbers cannot give any benefit to the present appellants-accused. 7. In view of these evidences on record, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th August, 2002 and 19th August, 2002 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1991/76 of 2001 is, hereby, upheld. There is no merit in this criminal appeal and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. The bail bond of appellant no. 2, namely, Bhuto Mahato is, hereby, cancelled and he is directed to surrender, immediately. Respondent State is directed to arrest him for serving rest of the sentence.