Judgment Z.K. Saiyed, J. 1. By way of present appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 27.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 140 of 2009. The said case was registered against the appellant-original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 436, 498A, 429 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 436 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code whereas the appellant is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant Jayaben Devendrasinh lodged complaint on 18.4.2009 at Godhra Police Station being CR No. 83 of 2009. It is stated that her marriage was solemnized with the accused Devendrasinh in the year 2002. She had two children out of her wedlock. Her husband was working as truck driver. Before three days of the incident her husband used to taunt her for petty matters and tell her that he did not want to keep her. Her husband used to beat her by saying such words. As the complainant was having two children she was tolerating the harassment. On 18.4.2009 in the morning the complainant had gone in village and returned to home at 3 O'clock in the noon, at that time her husband and son were present and her husband got instigated and started abusing her by telling her that, he did not require her. By saying such words he started quarreling with the complainant and sprinkled kerosene upon her and set her ablaze by lighting a matchstick, as a result, the complainant sustained burn injuries. Thereafter she was shifted to Civil Hospital, Godhra by calling 108 ambulance and was admitted in the burns wards. The son of the complainant Jayraj had died due to burn injuries. Thereafter complainant had also died. Hence the complaint was lodged. 3. Thereafter, charge Ex. 3 came to be framed and explained to the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The son of the complainant Jayraj had died due to burn injuries. Thereafter complainant had also died. Hence the complaint was lodged. 3. Thereafter, charge Ex. 3 came to be framed and explained to the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and also produced 33 documentary evidences. 5. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of accused person under Section 313of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him. 6. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned judgment and order convicted the appellant - accused. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction dated 27.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 140 of 2009 the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 8. Heard Mr. Pratik B. Barot, learned counsel for the appellant. He has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. He has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspective. 9. He has read evidence of the doctor and contended that looking to the injury disclosed in the postmortem note Ex. 47 and 48 it is prima facie established that it is a case of accidental death. He has drawn attention of the Court to the place of panchnama Ex. 15 and contended that looking to the condition of place of incident it is prima facie established that due to accident fire took place and in result of that accident both the deceased received more than 95% burn injuries and they died. He has read evidence of Executive Magistrate, who has recorded dying declaration Ex. 31, and contended that at the time of recording of dying declaration relatives of the deceased were present and under the influence of relatives Executive Magistrate has wrongly recorded dying declaration by narrating false story. He has read evidence of Executive Magistrate, who has recorded dying declaration Ex. 31, and contended that at the time of recording of dying declaration relatives of the deceased were present and under the influence of relatives Executive Magistrate has wrongly recorded dying declaration by narrating false story. He has contended that in the present case complaint is recorded by Investigating Officer from deceased herself, but looking to the contents of the complaint the deceased has disclosed contradictory version. He has contended that under the guidance of relatives of the deceased false story is recorded in the dying declaration. He has contended that accused has also received burn injury and he has disclosed in statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that while saving wife and son from burn injuries he has received burn injury. He has contended that prosecution could not prima facie establish contents of dying declaration made by the deceased before the Executive Magistrate as well as the complaint recorded by the Investigating Officer. He has contended that therefore dying declaration and complaint both cannot be considered. He has contended that there was no intention, motive or preparation by the present appellant to kill the complainant deceased. He has contended that due to instigation and provocation made by the deceased herself to the appellant the incident in question occurred in sudden provocation, hence present applicant is entitled to get benefit of provisions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and judgment and order of learned Judge deserves to be altered to punishment under Section 304(2) from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Lastly, he has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that the observations made by the learned Judge are not proper in the eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside. 10. Heard Mr. H.S. Soni, learned APP for the respondent - State. He has read charge, evidence of the complainant as well as dying declaration and contended that from the medical evidence and other documents produced on record it is prima facie established that appellant - accused has committed the offence in question. He has contended that the deceased herself has lodged complaint and deceased has dictated the statement before the Executive Magistrate. He has contended that the deceased herself has lodged complaint and deceased has dictated the statement before the Executive Magistrate. He has contended that in such type of cruel cases no leniency can be shown to the accused person. 11. He has contended that deceased has dictated dying declaration in presence of witnesses and appellant - accused has received burn injury which itself shows that appellant - accused was present at the scene of offence. He has contended that the person dying would normally not speak lie. He has contended that the learned Judge has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has passed absolutely just and proper judgment. Therefore also, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge requires to be confirmed. 12. He has contended that considering the evidence produced on record it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was subjecting mental and physical harassment to the deceased. The appellant caused death of deceased and her son by sprinkling kerosene and setting them ablaze by lighting a matchstick that is proved by the charge produced at Ex. 3. He has contended that as per opinion of medical expert, postmortem note Ex. 7, if any person sprinkle kerosene and set on fire with matchstick, such injuries are possible. 13. He has contended that conduct of the appellant shows that with intention, motive and preparation deceased was set ablaze by the appellant accused. He has contended that under Section 8 of the Evidence Act conduct of the appellant is required to be considered against him. 14. He has read evidence of the Executive Magistrate and contents of dying declaration and contended that deceased has disclosed the incident in the dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate as well as before the Police Sub-Inspector in the form of complaint. He has contended that Police Sub Inspector who is examined at Ex. 39 has supported the complainant. He has read evidence in the form of the panchnama of scene of offence and contended that it is not a case of accidental death. He has contended that sufficient corroborative piece of evidences are produced on record. He has contended that the prosecution by leading sufficient evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and learned Judge has rightly considered the case of the prosecution against the present appellant. He has contended that sufficient corroborative piece of evidences are produced on record. He has contended that the prosecution by leading sufficient evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and learned Judge has rightly considered the case of the prosecution against the present appellant. He has, therefore, prayed to confirm the judgment and order of the learned Judge. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. We have gone through the papers produced in the case. It is true that prosecution has examined sufficient witnesses in support of the case and also produced documentary evidence. Dr. Avadhkishor Ramsevak who is examined at Ex. 6 has deposed that he has performed postmortem of son of deceased Jayraj. He has deposed that kerosene was smelling from body of Jayraj. In the dying declaration produced at Ex. 31 deceased Jayaben has stated that her husband set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene on her person and people of village took her in ambulance 108 to Godhra Civil Hospital. In the yadi at Ex. 33 written by PSO on 18.4.2009 the doctor has endorsed that patient was conscious. The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate and complaint of deceased taken by Police Sub Inspector are corroborated by other evidence. We have compared contents of the complaint and dying declaration and it is established that the dying declaration is trustworthy, reliable and acceptable. From the cross-examination learned counsel for the appellant could not establish that the dying declaration is concocted. In the medical evidence it is clearly stated that such injury is possible by sprinkling kerosene and putting on fire with matchstick. 16. In the decision of Apex Court in the case of Hiraman v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 586 , which pertains to reliability of uncorroborated dying declaration, circumstances and appreciation of voluntary and truthful evidence the conviction was confirmed. 17. In the context of above, we have considered the conduct of the present appellant. Therefore, from the overall evidence produced on record it is prima facie proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the main ingredients of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are proved and defence which is taken by the present appellant cannot be considered in his favour. We are, thus, in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while convicting the appellant - accused. We are, thus, in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while convicting the appellant - accused. In our view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court. Hence this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 27.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 140 of 2009 convicting the appellant - accused is hereby confirmed. 19. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.