JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2006 as passed in Sessions Case No.41/2005 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi has convicted the accused-appellant Shantilal for the offences under Sections 302 and 498A IPC. The Trial Court has sentenced the accused-appellant for life imprisonment with fine in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC; and for three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-, and to undergo three months' further imprisonment in default of payment of fine for the offence under Section 498A IPC. 2. The accusation against the accused-appellant had been of having harassed his wife while making demands of money and gold; and of having caused her death after setting her on fire. The relevant factual aspects could be noticed in the following: 3. The complainant Kheta Ram (PW-3) submitted a written report (Ex.P/3) on 09.03.2005 at 11:00 p.m. before the Station House Officer, Police Station Mandar, District Sirohi with the submissions that he was a labourer at Ahmedabad having seven daughters and a son; that his elder daughter Bharti was married to the appellant Shantilal about 2½ years back; and that a daughter was born to his daughter who was about a year old. The complainant further stated that about 11:00 a.m. in the morning, he received a phone call from Saga Ram that his daughter had received burn injuries but he was told on asking that it was not necessary for him to come over; that thereafter, his brother Parkhaji telephoned at about 12:00 noon informing that Bharti was badly burnt and was admitted in Sirohi Hospital where after, he came to the house at Sorda with his wife when he was informed by the relatives that his daughter was set on fire by her husband Shantilal last evening at about 5:00-6:00 p.m. The complainant also stated that his daughter was living with her in-laws for 5-6 months but her husband always used to harass her with dowry demands. 4. On the basis of the report so made, FIR was registered for offences under Sections 498A and 307 IPC which was later on converted for the offences under Sections 302, 304B and 498A IPC upon demise of the victim Bharti on 19.04.2005. 5. 4. On the basis of the report so made, FIR was registered for offences under Sections 498A and 307 IPC which was later on converted for the offences under Sections 302, 304B and 498A IPC upon demise of the victim Bharti on 19.04.2005. 5. It is noticed from the material placed on record that the victim Smt.Bharti was taken to Primary Health Centre, Mandar on 08.03.2005 where her injury report (Ex.P/17) was prepared at about 7:30 p.m. and she was referred to Government Hospital, Sirohi. On 09.03.2005 in the noon hours, the SHO, Police Station Mandar made a request to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi for recording of her statement whereupon the Judicial Magistrate, Shri Salim Badar (PW-5) was directed to do the needful. The Magistrate (PW- 5), accordingly, reached the hospital at about 12:30 noon and proceeded to record the statement after verifying the victim's fit condition to make such statement. The Magistrate (PW- 5), accordingly, reached the hospital at about 12:30 noon and proceeded to record the statement after verifying the victim's fit condition to make such statement. This statement (Ex.P/8), recorded on 09.03.2005 at 12:45 p.m., being directly relevant could be noticed at the outset as under:- " iz'u & vkidh ;g gkyr dc vkSj dSls gqbZ\ mRrj & dy nksigj nks cts esjs ifr us eq>s egknsohth pyus ds fy, dgkA eSaus euk dj fn;k rks mlus eq>ls #i;s ekaxs] vius ikl ls mls 130@& :i;s fn;s fQj esjk ifr 'kkafryky #i;s ysdj pyk x;kA FkksM+h nsj ckn esjk ifr ?kj okil vk;k rks ,d DokVZj 'kjkc dh cksry lkFk esa yk;k Fkk tks mlus Vh0oh0 ds ikl j[k nh vkSj eq>ls vkSj iSls ekaxs esjs ikl iSls ugha FksA mlus eq>ls dgk fd dgha ls Hkh iSls ykdj eq>s nsA eSaus ?kj esa j[kh vj.Mh dwVdj csph tks eSaus iM+ksl ds nqdkunkj lokjke dych dks 57@& :i;s esa csphA esjs ifr us eq>ls 20@& #i;s vkSj ekaxs rks eSaus mls dgk fd viuh esgur dh dekbZ ls eSa rqEgsa 'kjkc ihus ugha nwaxhA rc 'kkafryky us eq>ls esjk ikWfdV Nhu fy;k rFkk ikWfdV esa ls #i;s fudkydj 'kkafryky us ikWfdV ij dsjksflu Mkydj mlesa vkx yxkus dh dksf'k'k dh rks eSaus oks ikWfdV mBkdj gekjh vksljh ds ikl QSad fn;k 'kkafryky us eq>s dgk fd rwus eq>s ikWfdV D;ksa ugha fn;k vc eSa rq>s tykmaxkA eSa ml le; lkM+h cka/k jgh FkhA 'kkafryky ?kklysV ikap yhVj ds IykfLVd ds fMCcs esa Fkk] dks esjs mij Mky fn;k eq>s pwYgs ds ikl cSBkdj eq>s ekphl gkFk esa ns nh vkSj dgk fd eSa ckgj tk jgk gwWa rq [kqn dks vkx yxkdj ej tk ugh arks eSa rq>s tykdj ekj nwaxkA 'kkafryky FkksM+h nsj ds fy, ckgj pys x;sA eSa pwYgs ds ikl cSBdj viuh cPph ds ckjs esa lksprh jgh vkSj eSaus vkx ugha yxkbZA dqN gh nsj esa 'kkafryky okil vk;k vkSj mlus eq>s [khapdj [kM+k fd;k vkSj ekphl ls esjh lkM+h esa vkx yxk nhA 'kkafryky ds gkFk Hkh FkksM+s ls ty x;s FksA eq>s tykus ls igys 'kkafryky us eq>s dgk Fkk fd vius cki ls 50]000@& #i;s vkSj lkr rksyk lksuk ysdj vk ojuk rsjh bl ?kj esa dksbZ txg ugha gSA eSaus vius ikik dh xjhch dks crkrs gq, mls euk dj fn;k rc mlus esjs mij ?kklysV Mkydj ckgj pyk x;k FkkA fQj okfil vkdj mlus eq>s tyk;k FkkA iz'u & ?kj esa ?kVuk ds le; dkSu dkSu Fks\ mRrj & esjs o 'kkafryky ds vykok ?kVuk ds le; dksbZ ?kj esa ugh FkkA esjh cPph lhek ckgj [ksy jgh FkhA iz'u & rqEgsa cpkus dkSu dkSu vk;k o fdlus D;k fd;k\ mRrj & tc eSa tyh] rks 'kkafryky ckgj pyk x;kA eSaus [kqn gh jtkbZ vks<+dj viuh vkx cq>k yh FkhA fQj 'kkafryky ckn esa vanj vk;k vkSj fpYykus yxk fd Hkkjrh [kqn Hkh ty xbZ vkSj eq>s Hkh tyk fn;kA 'kkafryky ds fpYykus ij vklikl ds yksx bdV~Bs gks x;s FksA fQj eq>s e.Mkj vLirky yk;s fQj fljksgh ys vk;sA iz'u & rqEgsa fdl fdlls f'kdk;r gS\ mRrj & eq>s flQZ vius ifr 'kkafryky ls f'kdk;r gS mlh us eq>s tyk;k gSA esjh lkl] tsB o ckdh lc llqjky okys vPNs gS muls eq>s dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha gSA iz'r & rqEgsa dqN vkSj dguk gS\ mRrj & esjh cPph lhek dks eq>s fnyoknks ;k ejh eEeh dks fnyoknksA mls esjh llqjky esa er NksM+uk oukZ oks mls Hkh ekj nsaxsA esjk ifr 'kkafryky ,d uEcj dk xq.Mk gS oks eq>s ekj nsxkA " 6. It appears further that the victim was later on taken to Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad where she expired on 19.04.2005. The investigation was carried out by PW-6 Prem Prakash and PW-9 Shyam Singh Ratnu and ultimately charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant for offences under Sections 498A, 302 and 304B IPC on 27.05.2005. After filing of the charge-sheet, the Magistrate committed the matter to the Court of Sessions; and the case was ultimately tried and decided by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi. 7. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely,- PW-1 Parkha Ram (uncle of the deceased) PW-2 Bhagwana Ram (uncle of the deceased) PW-3 Kheta Ram (father of the deceased) PW-4 Ranjeet Singh (a translator & newspaper reporter) PW-5 Salim Badar (the Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration) PW-6 Prem Prakash (Dy.S.P. who carried out part of investigation) PW-7 Dr. Krishna Bihari Malav (Medical Officer at Mandar) PW-8 Peer Singh (SHO Mandar who filed the charge-sheet) PW-9 Shyam Singh Ratnu (SHO Mandar who carried out other part of investigation) PW-10 Dr. B.B.Pandey (Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad) 8. The accused-appellant, while denying the allegations in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also examined himself as DW- 1 and another witness Lavji Ram as DW-2. 9. After thorough examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as also by the accused and after taking into comprehension all the facts and circumstances, the learned Trial Court found reliable the statement (Ex.P/8) as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, Shri Salim Badar (PW-5); and after rejecting the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant, held proved the facts that the accused-appellant had been harassing and maltreating his wife and he did pour kerosene and set her on fire with the intention of causing her death. The learned Trial Court, of course, found the ingredients of Section 304B IPC not established and thus, while discharging the accused of the offence under Section 304B IPC, convicted him for the offences under Sections 302 and 498A IPC and awarded sentence, as noticed at the outset. 10. Seeking to question the judgment and order so passed by the learned Trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence and the record in right perspective. 10. Seeking to question the judgment and order so passed by the learned Trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence and the record in right perspective. It is submitted with reference to the statement of PW-4 Ranjeet Singh that the deceased caught fire from a stove while working in the kitchen and such an incident has wrongly been given the shape of an intentional act on the part of the appellant. It is also submitted that the dying declaration (Ex.P/8) was in fact recorded the day next of the incident by the Judicial Magistrate (PW-5) and before recording of such statement, parents and other family members of the deceased had met her and hence, the statement as made could not have been used as a dying declaration made by the deceased of her own accord. It is also submitted that the deceased received about 40% burns and she died much later and the cause of death has also been septicemia due to burn injuries. It is submitted that looking to the nature of incident as also the fact that deceased expired about 1½ months later, there was no justification for conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The learned counsel also submitted in the alternative that in any case, looking to the nature of injuries and overall circumstances, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be said to be justified and at the most, the conviction could have been under Section 304 Part I IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has duly supported the judgment and order impugned with the submissions that for the dying declaration and reliable testimony of witnesses, the prosecution case stood proved beyond reasonable doubt; and the Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused-appellant. 11. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in this case. 12. It is but apparent on the record that on 08.03.2005, the victim Smt. Bharati was admitted at the Primary Health Centre, Mandar in 40% burnt condition with extensive burn injuries on her upper frontal portions, both hands and legs. 12. It is but apparent on the record that on 08.03.2005, the victim Smt. Bharati was admitted at the Primary Health Centre, Mandar in 40% burnt condition with extensive burn injuries on her upper frontal portions, both hands and legs. She was referred for treatment to the Government Hospital, Sirohi and was taken to Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad where she expired on 19.04.2005 but the testimony of the Medical Officer at Ahmedabad makes it clear that she carried 2nd to 3rd degree burns all over the body and she died for septicemia, which was the result of such burn injuries. Thus, demise of the victim Smt. Bhartai because of burn injuries remains a fact clearly established on record. 13. The fact that there had been regular ill-treatment of the deceased by the appellant is clearly established in the testimony of PW-1 Parkha Ram and PW-2 Bhagwana Ram, the uncles of the deceased as also PW-3 Kheta Ram, father of the deceased. As regards the burning of deceased and direct connectivity of the appellant with this incident, having examined the statement of the deceased Ex.P/8, we are satisfied that the same has been voluntary, truthful and free from doubts. Of course, while dealing with the dying declaration, extra caution is required but when found to be voluntary and free from doubt, such a statement could form the basis of conviction. 14. In Puran Chand v. State of Haryana: (2010) 6 SCC 566 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held as under: "15. The courts below have to be extremely careful when they deal with a dying declaration as the maker thereof is not available for the cross examination which poses a great difficulty to the accused person. A mechanical approach in relying upon a dying declaration just because it is there is extremely dangerous. The court has to examine a dying declaration scrupulously with a microscopic eye to find out whether the dying declaration is voluntary, truthful, made in a conscious state of mind and without being influenced by the relatives present or by the investigating agency who may be interested in the success of investigation or which may be negligent while recording the dying declaration. *** *** *** 18. *** *** *** 18. The law is now well settled that a dying declaration which has been found to be voluntary and truthful and which is free from any doubts can be the sole basis for convicting the accused." In Hiraman v. State of Maharashtra: (2013) 12 SCC 586 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held,- "Thus as can be seen, by enacting Section 32 (1) in the Evidence Act, the legislature has accorded a special sanctity to the statement made by a dying person as to the cause of his own death. This is by virtue of the solemn occasion when the statement is made. Besides, when the statement is made at the earliest opportunity without any influence being brought on the dying person, there is absolutely no reason to take any other view for the cause of his or her death. The statement has to be accepted as the relevant and truthful one, revealing the circumstances which resulted into his death. Absence of any corroboration can not take away its relevance. Exaggerated doubts, on account of absence of corroboration, will only lead to unmerited acquittals, causing grave harm to the cause of justice and ultimately to the social fabric. With the incidents of wives being set on fire, very unfortunately continuing to occur in our society, it is expected from the Courts that they approach such situations very carefully, giving due respect to the dying declarations, and not being swayed by fanciful doubts." Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chirra Shivraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh: (2010) 14 SCC 444 , while taking into consideration two dying declarations of deceased recorded at the earliest opportunity, has held as under:- "If dying declaration is trustworthy and if it can be shown that the person making the statement was not influenced by any exterior factor and made the statement which was duly recorded, it can be made basis for conviction........" 15. The statement Ex.P/8 has been reproduced hereinbefore. The Magistrate recorded on the top of the statement that the Medical Officer certified the victim to be in a fit mental state to make the statement and yet, he further put certain general questions to reach to the satisfaction that she was indeed in the fit condition to make the statement; and the learned Magistrate recorded the statement only after such satisfaction. In the statement, the victim has divulged in neat and clear sequence all the verbal and physical exchanges between herself and the appellant, the manner of the appellant having poured kerosene over her and asking her to set herself on fire and, thereafter, he having gone out and then, having come back and having set her on fire. She has also pointed out the scene sought to be created by her husband and in the last, made it clear that she was not making any accusation against anyone else of her in-laws but pleaded that her child be given to her mother as she was not relying on her husband, whom she described as a Gunda. The concerned Magistrate PW-5 Shri Saleem Badar has testified to all the facts and aspects related with recording of such statement and nothing adverse has come out in his or any other witnesses statement so as to discard or disbelieve the statement Ex.P/8. 16. True it is that the incident occurred on 08.03.2005 in the evening and the statement was recorded in the noon hours of 09.03.2005, however, from the statement of PW-3 Kheta Ram it is also clear that he got the information at Ahmedabad only at about 11:00 a.m. on 09.03.2005. Even if it be taken that some of the other relatives of the deceased had reached the hospital before the Magistrate reaching over there, the nature and tenor of the statement rules out any possibility of the deceased having been tutored or having made the statement at the instance of anyone else. There is no discrepancy in the statement. Looking to the overall circumstances and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as noticed herein above, we have no hesitation in holding that there is no doubt with regard to the truthfulness and reliability of the statement made by the victim. Even if she had died more than a month later, the value and worth of the statement, in our view, is neither mitigated nor diluted from any standpoint. The learned Trial Court, in our view, has rightly held the charge substantiated with reference to the statement of the victim. 17. A suggestion with reference to the statement of PW-4 and a news item said to have been sent by him, in our view, hardly carry any relevance or bearing in this matter. The learned Trial Court, in our view, has rightly held the charge substantiated with reference to the statement of the victim. 17. A suggestion with reference to the statement of PW-4 and a news item said to have been sent by him, in our view, hardly carry any relevance or bearing in this matter. The said witness had been translating the documents from Gujarati language to Hindi language and was also allegedly working as a newspaper reporter. He had allegedly sent a report suggestive that the incident occurred for the malfunctioning of a stove. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that this witness had not made any inquiry from the police personnel or from the victim. Any report made by him for newspaper was not having even a remote bearing on the merit consideration of the case. 18. The suggestions about the police making no investigation with reference to the stove also does not carry any substance. The Investigating Officer PW-6 Prem Prakash has clearly pointed out the different facets of investigation carried out by him including the availability of stove near a Chulaha. A look at the photographs Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/14 further makes it clear that the suggestion about the stove catching fire remains rather baseless. 19. Once it is found, particularly with reference to the statement Ex.P/8, that the accused-appellant did pour kerosene over the deceased and set her on fire, we are unable to agree with the submissions that the case may be taken as the one of the offence falling under Section 304 Part I IPC. For the intent as also specific knowledge with the accused-appellant that the act of putting the lady on fire was to cause her death, in our view, the appellant has rightly been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The ingredient of the offence under Section 498A IPC also having been made out, the conviction thereunder also deserves to be sustained.In view of the above, we find no force in the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant and the same is, therefore, dismissed. *******