JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. Orsu Nagamma was married to one Narasimha, in the year 2002, and they had a boy out of their wedlock. However, Narasimha died shortly thereafter. For her livelihood, Nagamama is said to have gone to Hyderabad as a labourer. The accused, by name, Muddangula Ganesh was a mason. He is said to have taken advantage of the fact that, the said Nagamma worked with him, for quite sometime, and illicit intimacy developed between them. After she worked one year at Hyderabad, Nagamma came to the place of her parents i.e., Tharnikal Village in Mahabubnagar District. On 23.06.2007, the accused is said to have gone to the house of the Nagamma, and that latter, asked him to go away. Enraged with that, the accused is said to have poured kerosene on Nagamma, and set her on fire. In the process of struggling, the accused is also said to have received burn injuries. Nagamma was shifted to the Government hospital at Kalwakurthy. At about 11.30 a.m., in the night, the A.S.I of police, PW.9, received information about the incident, and registered a case in Crime No. 118 of 2007. He recorded the statement of the deceased, marked as Ex.P7. Shortly thereafter, the executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, Kalwakurthy, went to the hospital, in the mid night, and recorded Ex.P3, another dying declaration. Nagamma died on 24.06.2007 at 4.00 a.m. Inquest, and Postmortem, was conducted. On the basis of the statement made by her, the F.I.R was prepared, and the accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. After completing the investigation, PW.10 filed the charge sheet. The trial Court framed the charge. Since the accused denied the allegation as to commission of offence, the trial was conducted. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined, and Exs.P1 to P13 were filed. MOs 1 to 4 were also taken on record. In addition to that, contradictory statements were marked as Exs.D1 to D3, and the hospital records, being marked as Exs.X1 to X3, was also treated as a part of evidence. Through its judgment, dated 21.07.2009, the trial Court held the appellant as guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Through its judgment, dated 21.07.2009, the trial Court held the appellant as guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Smt A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, submits that, though two dying declarations were said to have been recorded, none of them accorded with the prescribed procedure. She submits that the Medical Officer, examined as PW.7, categorically stated that either when Ex.P7, was recorded by PW.9, at 11.30 in the night, or when PW.6, recorded Ex.P3 at 12.00 in the mid night, his opinion, as to the condition of the patient was sought. She contends that the version presented by PW.1, the mother of the deceased, is at variance with what is contained in Ex.P3 and Ex.P7. It is also pleaded the fact that the incident occurred on account of the falling of kerosene lamp, on the cotton bed, upon which, the deceased and the accused was sleeping, has been elicited from none other than the Investigating Officer, PW.10. Learned counsel further submits that the judgment of the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that this is a rare case, in which, the two dying declarations were recorded, immediately, after the incident with quick succession, and in both of them, the deceased was consistent, as to the cause of death. She submits that once the accused did not dispute his presence at the place of occurrence, and he did not lead any evidence suggesting any other circumstance, the only inference that can be drawn is that, he is the person, who poured the kerosene upon the deceased, and set her on fire. She submits that, if in fact, the burn injuries were received due to accidental fall of the lamp, partly burnt bed, would have figured as a material object. It is also pleaded that the accused did not explain the head injuries, received by him. On account of the fact that, the deceased became a widow, at an early age, and that she has no independent livelihood at her native place, she migrated to Hyderabad, as an unskilled labourer, that too, alone. The accused was not related to, or otherwise, acquainted with her. The only occasion for them to come together, was that the deceased worked as a labourer under the accused. The accused was not related to, or otherwise, acquainted with her. The only occasion for them to come together, was that the deceased worked as a labourer under the accused. That is said to have developed into the illicit intimacy. The deceased, however, returned to her native place, within one year, and was living with her parents and brother. The accused is not a resident of that village. The circumstances, under which, he visited the deceased, are not explained by him. The fact that, he too was hospitalized along with the deceased, proves beyond no doubt, the presence of the accused, at the place of occurrence. From the suggestions made to various witnesses, on behalf of the accused, it is evident that he acknowledged the presence. It was however suggested that the incident occurred, on account of the sudden fall of kerosene lamp, on a cotton bed, on which, himself, and the deceased were sleeping. It is difficult to accept the theory presented by the accused. We are conscious of the fact that it is no part of the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances, under which, the incident has taken place. However, once he volunteers to present one, the Court can certainly scrutinize it, with reference to the evidence available on record. In case, the Kerosene lamp has fallen on a cotton bed, the persons who were sleeping on it, would feel the impact of the heat immediately, and they would get up. The situation would not develop to such an extent, as to cause serious burn injuries to both the persons, on the bed, at a time. Added to that, the wound certificate issued to PW.1, marked as Ex.P4, discloses that there were three injuries to the witness, and one of them, is a lacerated injury, on the head, caused through sharp weapon. This was not explained. Had it been a case, where the deceased, shared the company of the accused, in the night, she would not have stated in her declarations, marked as Exs.P3 and P7, about her warning, the accused, not to come to her. It is true that Exs.P3 and P7 were recorded by the respective officials, without ascertaining the condition of the patient through PW.7. It is true that Exs.P3 and P7 were recorded by the respective officials, without ascertaining the condition of the patient through PW.7. However, if one takes into account the evidence of PW.6, where he stated that the Doctor orally certified the condition, to be congenial, the failure to take signature on the declarations cannot be treated as fatal. Though the version of PW.7 does not accord with Exs.P3 and P7, the cause of the injuries to the deceased is stated in the same terms. The mere fact that the accused accompanied the deceased, to the hospital, does not reduce the gravity of the crime. On a close analysis of the evidence on record, it emerges that the accused poured kerosene, and set the deceased on fire, but in the struggle, he too suffered burn injuries, and in the scuffle, a head injury also. The fact that he has taken the deceased to the hospital, may be circumstance to show that, he did not have the intention to kill her. In the totality of the circumstances, we find that the case, which fits into Part-II of Section 304 IPC. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and altering the conviction of the accused to be the one under Part-II of Section 304 IPC and reducing the sentence to be the one of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven (07) years. The sentence as to fine ordered by the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in S.C.No.32 of 2008 is retained. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.