JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.54/2006 by which the appellant accused is convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months imprisonment. 2. In nutshell the story of the prosecution is that Satyen Datta a Doctor of Military Hospital sent a proforma report Exhibit P.8 on 6.9.2005 to Police Station, Udai mandir Camp M.H. Jodhpur informing that; Smt. Oma Devi W/o Avinash Hawaldar was brought by Shri N. Murti and Ramswaroop per Ambulance with 100% burn injuries in the hospital for treatment, during the course of admission and check up, said Oma Devi informed doctor that her husband Avinash burnt her by dousing kerosene over her and she sustained burn injuries, initially on the basis of this medico-legal report, which was reduced into writing by the Duty Medical Officer attending the patient in Military Hospital, Jodhpur, a FIR was lodged as Report No.519/2005 under Section 498-A and 307 of IPC at Police Station Udai Mandir, Jodhpur and subsequent to the investigation undertaken and conducted, a charge-sheet under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 of IPC was filed qua husband of the deceased, against whom a narration naturing dying declaration was made before D.M.O and after filing of the charge-sheet, trial was conducted against the Accused, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 304-B of IPC and prosecution produced nineteen witnesses and got exhibited thirty one documentary exhibits, While culminating the trial, learned trial court held the appellant-accused guilty and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as stated hereinabove, the appellant-accused has preferred appeal under hand assailing the same. 3. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned public prosecutor, learned counsel for the appellant-accused has contended that there are two FIRs Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.8 but the doctor on whose information Exhibit P.3 was lodged has not ratified the same in his evidence, there was no kind of discontent between the couple and victim did not disclose anything in the nature of homicidal burning before anybody during the course of saving her at her residence and ferrying her to hospital, neither there was any reason to utter anything to the doctor in the nature of dying declaration, said army Doctor has not recorded any dying declaration, but has noted such kind of allegations in the case history without any disclosure or substance and Senior Doctor Datta has also not been produced in the evidence even the allegations of kerosene pouring by her husband has also not been narrated to another senior army Doctor to whom the patient was referred vide Exhibit 3, learned counsel has submitted that tendering of this document i.e. Ex.P.3 has also been declined by the said Doctor, if this FIR was there, which has been relied by the prosecution, then how and why Exhibit P.8 another FIR was taken on record, this makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful and unreliable. Learned counsel has further added that PW10 Abhinandan, a child witness son of the accused has specifically said that incident was caused accidentally and no intentional burning was there. He has further said that the in-laws of the appellant-accused were nurturing animosity with the appellant-accused and the appellant-accused has lodged a FIR against his in-laws for theft, which they had committed in his house in Himachal Pradesh, this is why the parents of the deceased lady have concocted fake story against the appellant-accused. The said noting of alleged dying declaration allegedly recorded by the Army Doctor cannot be read against the appellant-accused, because it does not come under the purview of dying declaration. Moreover, the said Doctor and several other material witnesses even the Senior Physician having charge of the patient have not been produced in evidence. The prosecution story is highly doubtful, there are significant contradictions in the evidence of several witnesses and the learned trial court, while ignoring all the shortcomings has wrongly convicted the appellant-accused, so the appeal of the appellant be accepted and he be acquitted. The prosecution story is highly doubtful, there are significant contradictions in the evidence of several witnesses and the learned trial court, while ignoring all the shortcomings has wrongly convicted the appellant-accused, so the appeal of the appellant be accepted and he be acquitted. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that reliable evidence has been produced by the prosecution, victim has candidly communicated to Duty-Medical Officer in army hospital cause of her injuries and has informed the Doctor that her husband set her ablaze, which has been recorded by the said Doctor on the patient's history-chart at the time of admission and an army Doctor cannot concoct a fable and has further argued that the child witness PW10 Abhinandan has not narrated verity because he was not a 'real son' of the deceased and deceased was a second wife, who married with the appellant-accused later to the demise of first wife and the appellant-accused after consuming liquor, bottle of which was found and recovered from the kitchen, beaten his deceased wife because besides burn injuries, hematoma and other injuries were also detected on the body of the deceased and after dousing kerosene upon her, he burnt her, learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the conduct of the appellant accused corroboratively support Commission of the offence, because he even did not carry her burnt wife to the hospital and nor did accompany her, when neighbour Avinash came, he just sent him towards the site of event and did not bother to go along to save her burning spouse. Clarifying Exhibits P.3 and P.8, learned Public Prosecutor has said that there is no anomaly of any kind in both these papers. Exhibit P.3 was drawn by Physician at the time of admission and on patient's say in a natural and normal way, which was noted by the physician pertaining to cause of her injury, which has become, virtual alike to a dying declaration. Admittedly, the appellant-accused was not having good relations with the parental house of the deceased and there was discontent and because of this after consuming alcohol, he thrashed his wife and ignited her after pouring kerosene and there is no contradiction in the evidence produced by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is having clinching evidence against the appellant-accused. Admittedly, the appellant-accused was not having good relations with the parental house of the deceased and there was discontent and because of this after consuming alcohol, he thrashed his wife and ignited her after pouring kerosene and there is no contradiction in the evidence produced by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is having clinching evidence against the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused was very much present at the place of occurrence and because of inebriated position, he too got superficial burns, while dousing kerosene and igniting the deceased. So, the learned trial court has passed a correct judgment. The appeal of the prosecution does not have got any force, so it be dismissed. 4. Heard rival contentions and examined the record; 5. Ex.P.8 is a significant document, it is a report of DMO of MH drawn on a accident/medico legal reporting of, “proforma”, which contains the particulars of the patient and mode of accident/injury. Dr. Major S. Dutta PW.6 has mentioned on the proforma, cause of the injury as kerosene burn 100% (homicidal). On reverse of the proforma, a three line brief summary is also mentioned, namely “as per the statements of patient, she has been burned by her husband using kerosene. She is admitted as a case of 100% burn in ICU and beneath this, a text has been written on 6/9/2005 at 8 p.m. stating ^^;g fjiksVZ ceqdke ,e-,p- Jh lrhu nrk iq= Jh czgenrth mez 34 tkfr czkge.k fuoklh 572@1 Hkkjrh; dkyksuh eqtQjuxj ¼;wih½ gky estj M+h-,e-vks-,e-,p- tks/kiqj us is'k dh o rdjhju nfj;kQ~r ij crk;k fd Jhefr vksek nsoh ifRu go- vfouk'k ;wfuV 4¼1½ vkeZM fczxsM flaxuy da-lh@vks 56 , ih vks djhc 5-30 ih-,e ,e-,p esa HkrhZ fd;k Fkk HkrhZ djrs oDr ok pSd vi djrs oDr vksek nsoh us eq>s crk;k fd mlds ifr vfouk'k us mlds mij feV~Vh dk rsy Mkydj mlus vkx yxkbZ ftlls oks tyh gS Jhefr vksek nsoh 10 % tyh gS oks vHkh csgks'k gS Jhefr vksek nsoh ds ,EcqySal esa flikgh ,e-ewfrZ 53 th ,y lsD'ku o flikgh jkeLo:i 12 dksjil ,e vkbZ :e ysdj vk;s FksA fjiksVZ o rdjhju nfj;kQ~r i<+ dj lqukbZ lgh eku gLrk- fd;s^^ and a FIR under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC has been registered as FIR No.519/05 on 6/9/2005 at 8.30 p.m. Jodhpur RR No.293. 6. PW.6 Dr. 6. PW.6 Dr. Sateyn Datta D.M.O. Of M.H. has narrated that on 6/9/2005 when he was posted on the duty of Medical Officer in Military Hospital at Jodhpur, on that day Omi Devi wife of Hawaldar Avinash was brought in a burnt position, she was admitted in ICU, he had examined her. She informed him that she was burnt by her husband after dousing kerosene by her husband Avinash Kumar, then he referred her to ICU. She was brought by sepoy Murti and Ramswaroop. Sepoy Murti told him that the incident occurred at 5 p.m. Avinash was a resident of Hamidbagh Army Area. Omidevi was 100% burnt, he had treated her. He has also narrated an important thing that when Omidevi informed him that her husband Avinash had ignited her after dousing kerosene then she was concious. He has also said that he sent Ex.P.8 report to Police Station Udaimandir, which, bears his signature as A to B, he has also said that military sepoys, who brought Omi Devi, do also reside in the army quarters of Hamidbagh, in cross examination, he has further said that he called his senior doctor Lt. Col. Dass after 5 to 10 minutes after examining Omi Devi. He has also said that he had prescribed treatment for the patient and his senior also prescribed treatment, initially she was administered the treatment prescribed by him, subsequently she was given treatment, which was prescribed by his senior. He has also said that he had prescribed treatment of morphine injunction 3 mg and reni cadin injunction and oxyzen inhalations . He has also said that the information relating to Ex.P.3 furnished by him was provided by the persons, who brought Omi Devi. He has also clarified that in Ex.P.3, vitals could not be obtained was mentioned because Omi Devi's pulse and BP was unable to be taken, reason being, she was in burnt position. He has also said that “it is not essential that the mental condition of patient having 100% burn injuries turns completely deteriorated”. He has also said that Omi Devi was gasping and she was feeling difficulty in breathing, he has said that it is wrong that Omi Devi did not inform him of getting her ignited by someone. He has also said that it is wrong that she was physically not competent to make any utterance. He has also said that Omi Devi was gasping and she was feeling difficulty in breathing, he has said that it is wrong that Omi Devi did not inform him of getting her ignited by someone. He has also said that it is wrong that she was physically not competent to make any utterance. He has further said that Ex.P.8, has got a reference that deceased was burnt after pouring kerosene by her husband and has said that such a note was mentioned in Ex.P.8 by him from C to D. He has also said that he had sent Ex.P.8 prior to the death of the deceased, he has also said that he had attended Omi Devi twice, when she was brought and admitted subsequently, on a call in midnight, nothing abnormal or causing frailty to the reliability to the statements made by this medical expert has emerged from the cross examination. 7. PW.7 N. Murti an army constable and neighbour of the deceased has also made narration of the scene, physically observed by him, a significant narration has also been made by this army man PW.7 N. Murti that at the time of admission, deceased Omi Devi under pangs of burning, had informed Dr. S.Dutta DMO of Military Hospital that she was ignited by her husband and has specifically said that vLirky esa HkrhZ djkus ij ogka MkW ,l nRrk tks Mh ,e vks Fks] mUgksuss vksehnsoh dks iwNk fd D;k gqvk rks vksehnsoh us mudks Hkh dgk fd eq>s esjs ifr us tyk fn;k gSA^^ 8. Ex.P.31 – the spot map delineating the spot is also a crucial document, it shows that two cots are lying in one room shown as “1234” in the southern corner, both have been said to be knitted with Nylon plastic, entry gate of this room is situated in the lobby and the Rashoi (kitchen) is situated towards other side in North, which has also got a gate opening in the lobby, but the entrance of Rashoi (kitchen) and room No. 1234 have got “separate entries” and both are bounded, demarcated and situated separately and are not interconnected. It is relevant to deal the evidence of investigating Officer PW.19 Jaswant Singh Balot, in this context, as he has specifically said that he had been to the spot of incident but did not find any signs of burn incident in the Rashoi and has also said that there was “no stove” in the Rashoi (kitchen). Statements of PW.7 N. Murti are also important in this respect as he has said that he had gone there on hearing painful cries then two individuals informed him that smoke was emanating from the quarters of Avinash, he rushed to the quarter of Avinash and after ascending stairs, he found Avinash standing there, Murti asked him, what happened, Avinash did not reply but symbolically indicated by his finger towards inside. Avinash had drunk liquor, its smell was emanating from him, he has also said that he looked inside Rashoi and lobby but did not find anything but when peeped inside the room then found, it was full of smoke, so he came back and asked outside that “is there some kind of goods kept inside the room or somebody has burnt, then they said that wife of Avinash is burning inside, so he again went inside the room by then half of the body of Omi Devi wife of Avinash was there near the gate and she asked ^^HkS;k cpkvks^^ (“brother save me”), a bed was lying upon her, it was burnt, he removed it by kick. Entire body of Omi Devi had got burnt, no cloths was there on her body, he brought two blankets from nearby and after cladding them upon Omi Devi tried to pull her out, but she could not be ousted because of getting stuck with the floor, then with the help of three to four persons, he brought Omi Devi downstairs and went on motorcycle informing Ramswaroop to bring ambulance, who came there with ambulance. Ramswaroop and he put Omi Devi on stretcher and took her to the hospital, where she was admitted, in his cross-examination, he has said that she was taken to the Ward, where DMO Saheb sits in the Military Hospital and there was none along with them except Ramswaroop and N. Murti in the ambulance. Ramswaroop and he put Omi Devi on stretcher and took her to the hospital, where she was admitted, in his cross-examination, he has said that she was taken to the Ward, where DMO Saheb sits in the Military Hospital and there was none along with them except Ramswaroop and N. Murti in the ambulance. He has also said that he is not having relations with Avinash and had went to his house for the first time on that day and remained in the hospital for half an hour. He has also said that Omi Devi had talked orally with doctor saheb and gave verbal statements, he has again said that Avinash did not go along with them in ambulance and has further said that it is wrong that Omi Devi was not in a position to speak and did not inform anything to the doctor or did not inform that her husband had caused her burning. He has also refuted and denied that Omi Devi was not able to speak or would have not asked him, soliciting sparing her. 9. PW.16 Dr. Shyam Sunder who has examined accused Avinash has said that on 7/9/2005, he had examined Avinash to ascertain state of his liquor consumption and occularly it was felt that he was under symptoms of intoxication, there were blisters upon his right wrist and right arm upto 1/3 part, its report is Ex.P.28, in cross examination he has also said that excessive liquor smell was there in Avinash, but he was not under intoxication, only smell of liquor was coming out of his body. Ex.P.31 has also got a reference that at mark 'F' (as mentioned in point No.7 of the spot map), an empty bottle of B/P was found lying there. 10. PW.8 Ramswaroop, driver of army ambulance has said that on that day N. Murti came to him on motorcycle and informed him that a lady was ignited in Hamidbagh and asked to accompany, so he went there and found a lady was lying cladded under blankets, outside the quarter who was totally burnt, N. Mutri and people around there laid her in his ambulance. He and N. Murti brought Omi Devi to the military hospital and admitted her there. Her name was Omi Devi but later she died and this witness has not been cross-examined. He and N. Murti brought Omi Devi to the military hospital and admitted her there. Her name was Omi Devi but later she died and this witness has not been cross-examined. PW.9 Smt. Urmila neighbour of Avinash's house has said that on 6/9/2005 at about 4 p.m. when her husband had gone on duty at about 4 to 5 p.m., her neighbour Smt. Rashi came to her and informed that a cry and sound of ekjks ekjks is coming from there. We both came downstairs to the flat, neighbours also gathered there, then people brought wife of Avinash downstairs there. She was totally burnt and was taken away to Military Hospital by ambulance. Next day, she died. 11. PW.10 Abhinandan is a child witness, who is step son of the deceased and has said that when his mother died, he was not there in the town, but was in Himachal Pradesh with his grand-mother, but in cross examination some utterances which has been made by this child witness indicates that boy was not voluntary and was tutored as he has said that ^^esjss firkth ejh eEeh dks [kpZs ds iSls Hktrs FksA eEeh T;knk iSls vius HkkbZ;ks dks ns nsrh Fkh eEeh T;knk ihgj esa gh jgrh FkhA ?kj dk dke nknh djrh Fkh eEeh dk xqLlk cgqr rst FkkA ;g lgh gS fd esjs ikik] eEeh ls dHkh >xM+k ugha djrs Fks o mldk /;ku j[krs FksA esjs ikik muds foHkkx feyVªh okyks us o ekekvksa us feydj ;g >wBk eqdnek fd;k gSaA^^ and if we assess the explanation of the accused witness tendered at the time of statements made under Section 313, then it is almost similar like PW-18 Shivnandan and a kid of twelve years cannot assess the factum of rendering bulk of his father's money by the deceased mother to her parental house and she was of doleful and of peevish nature. 12. PW.15 Dr. M.P. Joshi conducting postmortem of the deceased Omi Devi has said that he had conducted postmortem of the deceased vide Ex.P.27 and the medical board was of Dr. Chetan Sharma and Dr. Yogiraj Joshi besides him, he has also said that the cause of death of the deceased was “shock because of excessive burns”, and has said that she was admitted on 6/9/2005 in Military Hospital and died on 7/9/2005 at 00.30 a.m. (midnight). Chetan Sharma and Dr. Yogiraj Joshi besides him, he has also said that the cause of death of the deceased was “shock because of excessive burns”, and has said that she was admitted on 6/9/2005 in Military Hospital and died on 7/9/2005 at 00.30 a.m. (midnight). Ex.P.27-postmortem report does also depicts the cause of death as shock due to excessive burns. Ex.D.3 is a medical case-sheet, comprises of twelve pages. Page No.2 of this medical case-sheet has also got a text written by Dr. Sateyn DMO of Military Hospital and from E to F of it reads; “sustaining burn injury when her husband put her on fire after dousing her with kerosene at about 1700 hours on 6/9/2005 at their residence” and this has been written by Dr. Sateyn Datta on the basis of information provided by the deceased and this has also been narrated by Dr. Datta in his cross examination and corroborated by PW 7 N. Murti. 13. Statements of PW.18 Shivnandan, who is also a child and 'step-son' of the deceased have been recorded, who has said that at the time of the incident, he was witnessing TV with his mother and his father was cleaning scooter downstairs. His mummy went in the kitchen to prepare tea, he smelt of burning and gone inside Rashoi, where he saw his mother burning, then he went downstairs, to call his father, who came upstairs and put blankets upon her but this witness has been declared “hostile”, if we assess other evidence of the prosecution, then it transpires that PW.7 N. Murti an army man and neighbour, who came to rescue, then he found Avinash upstairs under intoxication and even accused did not bother to go inside along with N. Murti to extinguish the blaze and to save her dying wife, but the accused just kept stood outside there and symbolically indicated by fingering to N. Murti, a neighbour, makes the entire evidence of this chap untrustworthy. Moreover, this chap has said that his mother got accidently burnt by “stove” in Rashoi, whereas no “stove” was there in the Rashoi, so far as the venue of the incident is concerned, it has also been shown to be in a room, in which two plastic knitted cots were lying and room was having a separate entry and was situated in the other side of the kitchen vide Ex.P.31, which has been discussed above, evaluation of the Parchabayan of this boy also reveals that homicidal act of burning was narrated by this witness therein, so the statements of this boy are dubious, because conduct of this boy rather discloses falsehood. A tender boy of eleven years will certainly make cries on observing his mother burning, but he has not made any such cry but has said to go downstairs to call his father. Witnesses reaching on spot as well as doctor conducting medical examination of the accused have clearly said that though the accused was not influenced by liquor, but was under consumption of liquor and bad smell of liquor was emanating from of his body. It also emerges from the evidence that accused did not carry her burnt wife to the hospital nor went along-with the neighbours in the ambulance, neither cried nor wept on burning of his wife even during the course of rescue operation made by neighbours rather remained passive. 14. Under explanation as tendered in the statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant has also said that his wife informed him that she got burnt accidentally by “stove” but as per the evidence of the army man PW.7 N. Murti, he did not participate in rescuing his wife nor “stove” was found in the kitchen, so the blisters found on his arm, points contrary to his version, indicating his indulgence in the burning of his wife. 15. PW-2 Avatar Singh is Subedar Major of army in whose presence match box, jerry can, broken bangles, burnt cloths and empty bottle of liquor were recovered vide Ex.P.1 and he has said that police had come to the quarter of Avinash, where these items were seized vide Ex.P.1, which bears his signature. He has also said that he had informed police vide Ex.P.4 that Omi Devi was burnt in quarter No.1359/12 and has said that Dr. Dutta was D.M.O. and probably the deceased lady had informed Dr. He has also said that he had informed police vide Ex.P.4 that Omi Devi was burnt in quarter No.1359/12 and has said that Dr. Dutta was D.M.O. and probably the deceased lady had informed Dr. Dutta that Avinash, her husband got her burnt, he has also said that he could know this fact later, which he has mentioned in Ex.P4 and this Ex.P.4 is an information, which was addressed to S.O. for lodging FIR, which has also got a foot note of Police Station Udaimandir with a noting that :- “Ps mn; eafnj fnukad 6-9-05 OkDr 10-30 ceqdke gehnckx ;g fjiksVZ Jh vorkj flag lqcsnkj for officer com. }kjk Hkjh gqbZ Jh fryd jkt lqcsnkj 4¼1½ vkEMZ fczxsM flax- Coy. is'k dhA pwafd bl lEca/k esa iwoZ DMO S.Dutta dh fjiksVZ ij eqŒuŒ 5@9@05 u/s 307, 498 IPC ntZ gksdj tsj vuqla/kku gS vr% mDr fjiksVZ 'kkfey i=koyh CR No.5/9/05 dh xbZA^^ 16. PW-1 Sukhdev is also an army man before whom seizures have been made, he too has said that kerosene jerrycan, broken bangles and burnt items were seized before him vide Ex.P.1, which bears his signature and Avinash was arrested vide Ex.P.2. PW-3 Tilak Raj Katoch is also an army man, who has said that police had sized jerry can of kerosene, match sticks, broken bangles and burnt cloths and nylon of Charpai and seized those items vide Ex.P.1. He has also admitted his signature on Ex.P.5 Fard Surat haal Lash, Ex.P.6 Panchnama as well as Ex.P.7 letter of consignment of dead body. 17. PW-11 Shaitan Singh police constable has said that on 21.9.2005, he was Head Constable in the office of S.P. Office, Jodhpur City and used to look after the F.S.L. related work. On that day two sealed packets were brought by Constable Ramavtar and after checking the seals and preparing forwarding letter, he rendered the packets and forwarding letter to Constable Ramavatar to deposit in F.S.L., who after depositing the same in F.S.L. brought its receipt. On that day two sealed packets were brought by Constable Ramavtar and after checking the seals and preparing forwarding letter, he rendered the packets and forwarding letter to Constable Ramavatar to deposit in F.S.L., who after depositing the same in F.S.L. brought its receipt. During his possession, the seized items were secure and intact, likewise PW-12 Chaturaram a police man, Head Moharir has said that on 6.9.2005, five sealed packets A, B, C, D & E were deposited by S.H.O. Jaswant Singh, which were entered by him in the register at serial No.706 and sent them (mark A and D packet) on 29.9.2005 through Constable Ramavatar for depositing in F.S.L. and after depositing the same in F.S.L. receipt was given to him. The original register is Ex.P.10. It is certified copy of Ex.10A and receipt is Ex.P.11. He has also said that during the course of his possession, exhibits remained in sealed position well intact. PW-13 Ramavatar is a police constable who too has said that on 21.9.2005, he was posted at Thana Udaimandir and two packets mark A and D were given to him by Malkhana incharge for depositing in F.S.L., Jodhpur and after getting Ex.P.9 forwarding letter from S.P. Office, he deposited them in F.S.L, Jodhpur in sealed and intact position on 22.9.2005 and brought receipt Ex.P.11 and submitted it, he has also said that packets remained sealed and intact while in his possession. PW-14 Baldevram is a photographer, who has taken photographs Exs.P.12A to P.26A and has narrated the same and their negatives being Exs.P.12 to P.26. 18. PW-4 Vijay Kumar, real brother of the deceased Omi Devi, has said that Avinash was earlier married but his wife had expired. He had two sons Abhinandan and Shivnandan, later, her sister Omi Devi was married on 2nd of March, 2001 with the accused. At the time of marriage, dowry was not settled but after marriage, Avinash used to taunt Omi Devi and after consuming liquor used to beat her. Omi Devi informed them all, when she came to them, they agitated and complained the same with Avinash and Avinash asked pardon and said, not to repeat beating and has further said that on 6th September, 2005, it was informed telephonically that his sister was burnt by Avinash. He and Rakesh came to Jodhpur on 8th September and found their sister dead in the hospital. He and Rakesh came to Jodhpur on 8th September and found their sister dead in the hospital. “He has also said that Avinash used to beat his sister”. He has also disclosed that Amit brother of accused got an FIR lodged against him as well as against his brother Rakesh and mother and 5 to 7 other persons alleging burning of domestic goods. He has also denied the suggestion that his deceased sister was having an irritable and peevish temperament and did not prepare meal for days together. PW-5 Rakesh Kumar cousin brother of deceased Omi Devi has also said that Omi Devi married with Avinash in 2001, she married with Avinash after death of his first wife and Avinash was having two sons from his first marriage, namely Abhinandan and Shivnandan and after marriage, Omi Devi used to visit her parental house. Omi Devi then informed him that her husband harasses and beats her by saying that she has not brought dowry and on complaint Avinash had confessed his wrong and said not to beat in future, he has also said that Avinash used to beat Omi Devi and might have burnt because of that. He has also said that Omi Devi seldom visited her parental house, and then always visited his house as well. He too has denied alleged perverse and peevish attitude of the deceased Omi Devi. He has also said that Amit brother of the accused has lodged a case of beating against him and 16 other persons. 19. On the basis of scrutiny of the afore-discussed evidence, it undoubtedly emerges that accused Avinash was there at his residence when Omi Devi was burnt and his marriage was solemnized only four and half years earlier with the deceased and deceased was being harassed and beaten for dowry and she died an unnatural death in presence of her spouse. PW.6 Sateyn Datta, an army Doctor was DMO of Military Hospital, Jodhpur, who attended emergency and examined and treated burnt Omi Devi, was very well informed by the victim, the actual cause of her injury by saying that her husband ignited her by dousing kerosene, such a scribe is there in Ex.P.8 as well. Ex.P.4 and Ex.D3/2 have also got such a textual substance. Ex.P.31 spot map of venue discloses that the burning took place inside the room and not in kitchen as defended. 20. Ex.P.4 and Ex.D3/2 have also got such a textual substance. Ex.P.31 spot map of venue discloses that the burning took place inside the room and not in kitchen as defended. 20. PW-19 Jaswant Singh, the Investigating Officer, has specifically said that there was neither symptoms of burning in kitchen nor there was any “stove” in the kitchen, rescuing eye witness, army man PW 7 N. Murti, who went inside the room for rescue purpose, did found and rescued victim lady from the “room”, where two nylon kitted cots were lying, which too were burnt, there were no cloths on the body of the deceased, which too were burnt, she asked her neighbour army man K. Murti by saying “HkS;k cpkvks”HINDI and this witness, who witnessed the burning scene, brought blankets from nearby houses and put them upon the ablazed lady in order to save her and subsequently went to call ambulance and brought it and admitted the victim lady in the military hospital, where victim informed attending DMO Dr. Sateyn Datta that she was advertently got burnt by her husband Avinash after pouring kerosene. 21. PW 7 N. Murti has also uttered about the kind of attitude of apathy as shown by accused husband of the victim that he was there standing silent, just indicated symbolically towards room, neither went to rescue his wife nor accompanied with this neighbour in rescuing his wife, even voluntarily did not go along with the neighbours in ambulance to hospital, where burnt lady was ferried and was lying under the pangs and misery. 22. PW-17 Sunil Bishnoi is an investigating Officer, who has conducted partial investigation of the case and he has narrated the sequence and chronology of partial investigation conducted by him and the subsequent investigating Officer PW 19 Jaswant Singh, while corroborating Exs.P.1, P.2, P.4, P.5, P.8, P.29, P.30 and P.31 has narrated the entire version of investigation conducted by this witness, nothing causing feebleness to the testimony has emerged from the cross of the witnesses. 23. Evidence of PW 18 Shivnandan, step-child of the deceased is also not trustworthy because the venue of incident is a “room” not “Rashoi”, nor any “stove” was found in the Rashoi as he said. 23. Evidence of PW 18 Shivnandan, step-child of the deceased is also not trustworthy because the venue of incident is a “room” not “Rashoi”, nor any “stove” was found in the Rashoi as he said. The theory of washing scooter by accused down-stair does also become false, when the accused was found under liquor consumption, up-stairs in a sluggish and passive standing way, not to rush to rescue his burning wife and the kind of blisters found on the arms of the accused indicates something otherwise hinting his indulgence in advertent ignition of his wife. Cumulative assessment of afore discussed evidence connects the appellant-accused with crime in a positive way and there appears that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. So, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed, hence, the same is dismissed and the impugned judgment is confirmed.