Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The sole accused in S.C.No.233 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar was tried for the offence of committing murder of one Smt.Afsar Begum on 29.07.2007 by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. Through its judgment, dated 12.10.2009, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Makthal Police Station, P.W.10, received an intimation at 4.30 p.m. on 29.07.2007 from the Government Hospital, Makthal to the effect that Afsar Begum was brought to the hospital with 80 to 90% burn injuries. Soon thereafter, P.W.10 rushed to the hospital and on finding that the condition of the patient is serious, he recorded her statement, Ex.P11. Afsar Begum is said to have informed him that when she was sleeping in her house alone at about 3.00 p.m., one Mallesh, who had developed intimacy with her daughter, P.W.2, poured kerosene upon her, set her on fire and fled away. On hearing her cries, her daughter, P.W.2, son (not examined), and a neighbour, Anitha, P.W.1, have rushed to the spot, doused the fire and took her to hospital. P.W.10 registered Crime No.77 of 2007 by alleging offences punishable under Sections 307 and 509 I.P.C. Afsar Begum died at 6.20 p.m. on the same day. Therefore, Section 302 I.P.C. was included in the First Information Report. P.W.10 has drawn the scene of offence panchanama, inquest and sent the body for post-mortem examination. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.11 and he filed a charge sheet. Thereupon, the case was committed to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 were filed. Mos. 1 to 3 were taken on record. Sri M.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the dying declaration, Ex.P11, even if, can be taken on its face value, it does not give the particulars of the person, who is said to have committed the offence. He contends that the only basis for P.W.11 to zero on the sole accused is said to be the information furnished by P.Ws.1 to 5 and once all the witnesses were declared hostile, the very basis ceases to exist. He contends that the only basis for P.W.11 to zero on the sole accused is said to be the information furnished by P.Ws.1 to 5 and once all the witnesses were declared hostile, the very basis ceases to exist. He contends that the trial Court has virtually stretched the reasoning and logic to connect the accused to the offence. Learned counsel further submits that when none other than the daughter and brother of the deceased stated that the death occurred on account of suicide, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that though P.Ws.1 to 5 have been declared as hostile, Ex.P11, dying declaration, can constitute the basis for conviction, if one takes into account the other circumstantial evidence. She contends that the deceased clearly named the person, who poured kerosene and set her on fire as Mallesh and the accused was proved to be the same person through the evidence on record. The deceased was working as a maid-servant with P.W.4. She had a daughter, P.W.2, and a son. The source of information for the Police to set the machinery of law in motion is the information received by P.W.10 from the hospital. That the deceased was admitted into the hospital with serious burn injuries, is beyond any pale of doubt. P.W.10 visited the hospital and obviously because there was no possibility to immediately secure the presence of the Magistrate for recording dying declaration, he himself recorded it. The Medical Officer, who was examined as P.W.7, certified that the patient was in a position to depose. Ex.P11, dying declaration recorded by P.W.10, reads as under: “I am a resident of Nandini Nagar, Makthal. Our colony person Mallesh since for the last year used to harass my daughter Sammena asking her to elope with him, we would to somewhere. On observing that I warned him several times not to come to my daughter, but he was behaving as usual. Today, in the afternoon at about 3.00 hours I slept alone in my house. Then, Mallesh came into my house and poured kerosene on me which is available in my house itself and set fire with match stick and thereafter he fled away. Today, in the afternoon at about 3.00 hours I slept alone in my house. Then, Mallesh came into my house and poured kerosene on me which is available in my house itself and set fire with match stick and thereafter he fled away. I shouted and on hearing my cries my daughter Sammena and my brother Minu, Anitha and some others came inside and extinguished the flames and brought me to Government hospital.” Since the patient was certified to be conscious and coherent during the course of recording the statement, we take Ex.P11 on its face value, notwithstanding the fact that P.W.2, none other than the daughter of the deceased, stated that the death was on account of the fact that the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting on fire by herself. It is also necessary to mention that not only P.W.1, neighbour of the deceased, but also the brother of the deceased, P.W.3, said the same thing. Assuming that the deceased died on account of pouring kerosene being set on fire by a different person, the controversy would be as to who that person is? In Ex.A11, the name is mentioned as ‘Mallesh’ and no further particulars are given. Several persons exist with the name of Mallesh. A description of that nature would be totally inadequate, to identify a particular individual. It does not contain surname or family name, much less the residence and the father’s name are indicated. It is not as if the said Mallesh was a house-holder. It is important to note that in the course of recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that his name is Mallappa S/o.Chandrappa and he is studying B.Tech. The prosecution could have identified the person mentioned in Ex.P11, through the son of the deceased. The reason is that the only basis mentioned in Ex.P11 for Mallesh to attempt to kill the deceased is that she was coming in the way of his relationship with the daughter of the deceased i.e. P.W.2. P.W.2 has virtually nullified the version presented in Ex.P11. This witness was declared hostile. In the cross-examination by the prosecution, it was suggested that she had love affair with the accused and that the deceased objected to it. P.W.2 has virtually nullified the version presented in Ex.P11. This witness was declared hostile. In the cross-examination by the prosecution, it was suggested that she had love affair with the accused and that the deceased objected to it. It was suggested that the affair between the accused and P.W.2 was complained to G.Narsimulu, P.W.4, in whose house the deceased was working as a maid-servant. P.W.4 was also declared hostile on finding that he did not support the case of the prosecution. He denied the suggestion made to him about the alleged love affair between the accused and P.W.2. Notwithstanding the fact that the commission of offence is proved, the identity of the accused assumes importance. It is only when the occurrence is attributed to an individual and proved to the satisfaction of the Court, that such a person can be convicted for the offence and imposed punishment. In the instant case, the death of the deceased on account of burn injuries is evident on the face of it. However, when it comes to the question of identifying the person, who is responsible for it, the evidence is totally inadequate. The accused clearly stated that his name is Mallappa. Despite that, he was shown as Mallesh, obviously to be in conformity with the name mentioned in Ex.P11. No effort was made either by the prosecution or by the defence to drive home the point that the name of the person who has been put to trial is Mallesh and not Mallappa. When such is the fluid situation in the entire case, it is not at all safe to convict a person and impose the sentence of very high degree. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.233 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, dated 12.10.2009, against the appellant-accused, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.