JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned 7th (Ad-hoc) Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 138 of 2010 dated 22.02.2012 whereby, the appellant, original accused, has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 302, 498(A), 323 and 504 IPC. For conviction u/s. 302 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; For conviction u/s. 498(A) IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year; For conviction u/s. 323 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months; and For conviction u/s. 504 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo SI for one month and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, SI for three months. All the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the sentence already undergone by appellant was given set-off. 2. The facts in brief are that the marriage between the appellant herein, original accused and original complainant, Sunitaben, took place in the year 2000 as per the prevailing customs and rituals. It is the case of prosecution that the appellant was into the habit of consuming liquor on regular basis and thereafter, used to pick up quarrels with the complainant. 2.1 On 31.12.2009 at around 07:00 hrs., the appellant left for work. However, at around 09:00 hrs., the appellant returned home in an inebriated condition and thereafter, picked up a quarrel with the complainant. He also began to abuse the complainant physically. During that period, the appellant picked up the kerosene stove lying in the house and sprinkled kerosene over the complainant. Thereafter, he set her ablaze. Before the fire could turn into an inferno, the complainant rescued herself by pouring water and was successful in dousing the fire. On hearing the shouts of complainant, the neighbors assembled in her house by which time the appellant fled from the house. The complainant was rushed to the Hospital. The Medical Officer on duty recorded the history of incident. 2.2 A complaint in connection with the aforesaid incident was lodged with Udhna Police Station vide I.C.R. No. 316/2009. Her dying declaration came to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate concerned. Necessary investigation was done and the accused came to be arrested. On 11.01.2010 the complainant succumbed to the burn injuries. At the end of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the trial Court. Her dying declaration came to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate concerned. Necessary investigation was done and the accused came to be arrested. On 11.01.2010 the complainant succumbed to the burn injuries. At the end of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the trial Court. However, since it was a sessions triable offence, the case was committed to Sessions Court and ultimately, trial was initiated. 2.3 During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses; Wt. No. Name of witness Exhibit no. 1. Dr. Bhaumesh Mukesh Rajdev 8 2. Sureshbhai Amrutbhai Sandane 15 3. Rajendra Babusing Girashe 20 4. Satishkumar Jagjivandas Parmar 24 5. Dr. Nisha Vinodchandra Chandra 30 6. Ranjanaben Sopanbhai Sapkale 33 7. Hiraman Nimba Patil 35 8. Rekhaben Bhimrao Patil 36 9. Lalitaben Vijaybhai Patil 37 10. Shantaram Pandurang Patil 38 11. Nagarbhai Kutariyabhai Vasava 41 12. Nasarvan Damabhai Chaudhary 43 13. Amrutlal Ramjibhai Chaudhary 45 14. Mohabatsinh Manubhai Parmar 49 15. Dr. Samir Hasmukhbhai Vadher 53 3. The prosecution had produced and relied upon several documentary evidence, particularly, the Postmortem report at Exh. 11, Cause of death certificate at Exh. 12, panchnama of scene of offence at Exh. 16, inquest panchnama at Exh. 23, dying declaration at Exh. 26, complaint at Exh. 39 and FSL Report at Exh. 52. 4. At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statement of accused u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order, which has led to the filing of present appeal. 5. Ms. Kiran Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-original accused, fairly conceded that she would not be in a position to assail the impugned judgment on merits insofar as it relates to conviction of appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC is concerned in view of the cogent and convincing evidence on record. She, however, submitted that since the complainant-deceased died on account of septicemia caused on account of burns, the conviction of the appellant u/s. 302 IPC may be altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC and appropriate sentence may be imposed. 6. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP, was not in a position to controvert the aforesaid proposition of law. 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents on record. There is no dispute about the fact that deceased died a homicidal death. 8. 6. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP, was not in a position to controvert the aforesaid proposition of law. 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents on record. There is no dispute about the fact that deceased died a homicidal death. 8. The oral evidence on record in the form of depositions of Ranjanaben Sopanbhai Sapkale (P.W.-6), who is the neighbor of deceased and before whom the complainant-deceased narrated the history of incident; of Dr. Nishaben Vinodchandra Chandra (P.W.-5), who is the Medical Officer and before whom also the complainant-deceased narrated the history of incident; of Satishkumar Jagjivandas Parmar (P.W.-4), who is the Executive Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of deceased; and of Shantaram Pandungar Patil (P.W.-10), who is the A.S.I. who recorded the complaint of deceased, establish the guilt of appellant beyond doubt. Further, the documentary evidence on record in the form of dying declaration (Exh. 26) and complaint (Exh. 39) also support the prosecution case. Thus, the oral as well as documentary evidence on record establish the presence and role of the appellant beyond doubt and the Court below was justified in holding the appellant guilty of the crime in question. 9. However, insofar as the conviction part is concerned, the Court below held the appellant guilty for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and other related offences. It is an admitted fact that deceased died on account of septicemia resulting from burn injuries. 10. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of Apex Court in the case of Ganga Dass @ Godha v. State of Haryana, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 534, wherein the Apex Court observed in Para-36 as under; "36. We find considerable force in this submission. As stated above the occurrence took place on November 18, 1988 and the deceased died 18 days later on December 5, 1988 due to septicemia and other complications. The Doctor found only one injury on the head and that was due to single blow inflicted with an iron pipe not with any sharp-edged weapon. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the appellant intended to cause death nor it can be said that he intended to cause that particular injury. The Doctor found only one injury on the head and that was due to single blow inflicted with an iron pipe not with any sharp-edged weapon. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the appellant intended to cause death nor it can be said that he intended to cause that particular injury. In any event, the medical evidence shows that the injured deceased was operated but unfortunately some complications set in and ultimately he died because of cardiac failure etc. Under these circumstances, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder. Instead we convict him under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to undergo six years' RI. The sentence of fine of Rs. 2000 along with default clause is confirmed. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed." 11. Similarly, in the case of Maniben v. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 8 SCC 796, the deceased therein was admitted in the hospital with about 60% burn injuries and during the course of treatment developed septicemia, which was the main cause of death of the deceased. It was established that during the said period of eight days in hospital, the injuries aggravated and worsened to the extent that it led to ripening of the injuries and the deceased died due to poisonous effect of the injuries. The Apex Court held that injuries sustained by deceased were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and accordingly, altered the conviction of accused from 302 IPC to 304 Part-II IPC. 12. Considering the fact that deceased died 11 days after the date of alleged incident while undergoing treatment and the medical evidence which shows that deceased died of septicemia caused on account of burns, we find substance in the submission made on behalf of appellant-accused that the conviction of the appellant u/s. 302 IPC deserves to be altered to one u/s. 304 Part-II IPC. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, while retaining the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below for other offences, we alter the conviction of appellant u/s. 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC and impose the punishment of imprisonment for Five Years. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, while retaining the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below for other offences, we alter the conviction of appellant u/s. 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC and impose the punishment of imprisonment for Five Years. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 138/2010 is modified to the extent that conviction of appellant, original accused, u/s. 302 IPC is altered to one u/s. 304 Part-II IPC and the original accused is ordered to undergo imprisonment for Five Years and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, SI for three months. Rest of the impugned judgment and order remains unaltered. Record and proceedings, if lying here, be sent to the trial Court forthwith.