Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1055 (ALL)

Dilip Kumar v. State of U. P.

2017-04-19

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I, BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Case called out in the revised list. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. 2. Record shows that this appeal is of the year 1990 and Dilip Kumar, sole appellant in this appeal is on bail since 19.01.1991. 3. Record further shows that when this appeal was called out on 25.01.2017, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. We passed an order issuing non-bailable warrant against the appellant. But the non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant pursuant to our order dated 25.01.2017 through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad could not be executed against him as he was not found residing at the address mentioned in the memo of appeal. Consequently, on 23.03.2017, we passed an order directing Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to proceed against the sureties of the appellant Dilip Kumar. However, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad vide his report dated 27.02.2017 has informed that he could not proceed against the sureties as bail bonds furnished by the sureties of the appellant at the time of his being released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23.03.2017 could not be traced out. 4. In view of the above, it is apparent that neither the appellant nor his counsel are interested in the disposal of this appeal. Since, neither the address of the appellant is available nor the bonds furnished by his sureties are traceable, there is no likelihood of the accused being arrested and produced before this Court and no useful purpose will be served by directing Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to take further steps for tracing out the accused and producing him before us. It is obvious that the appellant has abused the liberty of bail. 5. Faced with the aforesaid contingency, the question which arises before us is that whether we are bound to adjourn the hearing of this appeal in the absence of both the appellant and his counsel and wait perennially for the appellant to be traced out, if at all, and produced before this Court. 5. Faced with the aforesaid contingency, the question which arises before us is that whether we are bound to adjourn the hearing of this appeal in the absence of both the appellant and his counsel and wait perennially for the appellant to be traced out, if at all, and produced before this Court. Under identical circumstances, the Apex Court after a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions on the issue has distilled the legal position into six propositions in paragraph 19 of its judgment delivered in the case of K.S. Panduranga vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721 : 19.1 That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits. 19.2 That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent. 19.3 That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so. 19.4 That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court. 19.5 That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the appellant-accused if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the court from doing so. 19.6 That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation. 6. Thus, in view of the legal position propounded by the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Panduranga (Supra), we do not find any good reason to adjourn the hearing of this appeal suo motu in the absence of the appellant or his counsel and we proceed to examine this appeal on merits with the aid of Sri A.N. Mulla assisted by Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned A.G.A. and Smt. Manju Thakur, brief holder for the State. 7. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Dilip Kumar against the judgment and order dated 01.06.1990 passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in S.T. No. 375 of 1987, State vs. Dilip Kumar, convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C. 8. 7. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Dilip Kumar against the judgment and order dated 01.06.1990 passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in S.T. No. 375 of 1987, State vs. Dilip Kumar, convicting and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C. 8. The brief facts of this case are that on the basis of the written report (Ext.Ka.1), lodged by Babita Srivastava at P.S. Keerganj which was scribed by PW-3 Nand Lal Kumar, Case Crime No. 50 of 1987 was registered against one appellant Dilip Kumar, husband of Babita Srivastava, u/s 307/ 498-A I.PC. In the written report (Ext.Ka.1) complainant Babita Srivastava had stated that marriage between her and appellant Dilip Kumar was solemnized in the year 2002 and ever since then she was being tortured and maltreated by her husband for having brought inadequate dowry. On the day of incident at about 12:30 P.M. accused-appellant Dilip Kumar started beating her and after pouring kerosene oil on her, he set her ablaze on which she came out into court-yard of her house shouting for help. Her mother-in-law Smt. Chintamani and her brother-in-law PW-1 Anil Kumar poured water on her in an effort to extinguish the fire and took her to the hospital. On the basis of the written report (Ext.Ka.1), check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.17) and necessary G.D. entry (Ext.Ka 18) were prepared by PW-11 Ram Vilas Chaturvedi, who was posted as Head Moharrir at P.S. Keerganj at the relevant time. Record further indicates that the dying declaration of complainant Babita Srivastava was recorded at Swaroop Rani Hospital, Allahabad. Relevant G.D. Entry vide rapat no. 36 on 20.02.1987 at 15:30 P.M. was prepared as (Ext.Ka.18). Before Sri Shiv Shankar Tiwari, Additional City Magistrate IIIrd, she stated that on the day of the incident, a quarrel had taken place between her and her husband at about 10 A.M. whereafter her husband had taunted her by saying that she had not brought any dowry from her parents and then poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze saying that he would finish her. Her dying declaration is on record as (Ext.Ka.16). Complainant Babita Srivastava died on 24.02.1987 at about 5:25 P.M. in the hospital as a result of burn injuries. 9. Her dying declaration is on record as (Ext.Ka.16). Complainant Babita Srivastava died on 24.02.1987 at about 5:25 P.M. in the hospital as a result of burn injuries. 9. Initially, the case was investigated by PW-8 S.I. Jagatpal Singh Parihar, who after inspecting the place of occurrence on 20.02.1987, prepared the site plan (Ext.Ka.13) and seized the half burnt clothes and mattress (material Ext.Ka.1), bed-sheet (material Ext.Ka.2), half burnt nylon saree (material Ext.Ka.5) and half burnt blouse (material Ext.Ka.6) along with match-box (material Ext.Ka.3), broken pieces of bangles (material Ext.Ka.4) and velvet (material Ext.Ka.7) and prepared the recovery memo of the aforesaid articles (Ext.Ka.14) and got the seized articles sealed on the spot. On the same day, he promptly recorded the statement of Smt. Babita Srivastava and her mother-in-law Smt. Chintamani and arrested the accused-appellant on the next day (21.02.1987). Since, after the death of the complainant Babita Srivastava on 24.02.1987, the case was converted to one under Section 302 I.P.C. from Section 307 I.P.C., its investigation was taken over by PW-5 C.O. Rajbir Singh. 10. The injuries of the complainant Babita Srivastava were examined on 22.02.1987 at about 2:20 P.M. by PW-6 Dr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava who had prepared her injury report (Ext.Ka.11). The injury report of deceased Babita Srivastava (Ext.Ka.11) indicates that she was admitted to hospital with 90 percent burns. After the death of Babita Srivastava on 24.02.1987, inquest on her dead body was conducted under the supervision of Officiating Magistrate, Allahabad on 25.02.1987 at 3-4 P.M. Her inquest report (Ext.Ka.12) and other related documents photo nash (Ext.3), challan nash (Ext.4), letters addressed to C.M.O and R.I. (Ext.5 and Ext.6) and impression of specimen seal (Ext.7). Thereafter, the dead body of deceased Babita Srivastava was sealed and dispatched for postmortem through PW-9 Constable Tirth Raj Shukla and PW-13 Constable Satya Prakash Pandey. 11. Postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Babita Srivastava was conducted on 26.02.1987 at 3:30 P.M. by PW-10 Dr. S.C. Srivastava in the presence of PW-7 Dr. U.S. Sinha who had also prepared her postmortem report (Ext.Ka.12). He opined that the deceased had died as a result of shock due to antemortem burn injuries on 24.02.1987 at about 5:25 P.M. The information regarding the death of deceased Babita Srivastava was recorded by PW-11 Ram Vilas Chaturvedi in G.D. vide rapat no. U.S. Sinha who had also prepared her postmortem report (Ext.Ka.12). He opined that the deceased had died as a result of shock due to antemortem burn injuries on 24.02.1987 at about 5:25 P.M. The information regarding the death of deceased Babita Srivastava was recorded by PW-11 Ram Vilas Chaturvedi in G.D. vide rapat no. 22, 11:50 A.M. dated 25.02.1987 whereafter the case was converted to one u/s 302 I.P.C. (Ext.Ka.15). The Investigating Officer PW-5 C.O. Rajbir Singh, after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.10) against appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. Since the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad committed the case for trial of the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Allahabad where it was registered as S.T. No. 375 of 1987, State vs. Dilip Kumar and made over for trial to the Court of Xth Additional District Judge, Allahabad who on the basis of material on record and after hearing the accused on the point of charge, framed charge u/s 302 I.P.C. against him. The accused-appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 12. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as 14 witnesses of whom Nand Lal, real brother of the deceased Babita Srivastava was examined as PW-3. He proved the written report (Ext.Ka.1) by deposing that on receiving information about her sister being burnt and admitted to hospital from Anil Kumar, brother of the accused appellant, he reached the hospital at about 2 P.M. and met her sister who narrated to him the entire episode which was scribed by him and thereafter, the deceased Babita Srivastava had put her thumb impression thereon and then he had lodged the same on the same day at P.S. Keerganj at about 1530 hours. He further corroborated the facts stated by Smt. Babita Srivastava in her dying declaration. Shiv Shankar Tiwari who was posted as Additional City Magistrate IIIrd in Allahabad at the relevant point of time was examined as PW-12. He proved the dying declaration of the deceased (Ext.Ka.16) by deposing that he had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at about 3 P.M. on receiving information about the incident from the hospital after the doctor had certified that Babita Srivastava was in a fit mental condition to give her statement. He proved the dying declaration of the deceased (Ext.Ka.16) by deposing that he had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at about 3 P.M. on receiving information about the incident from the hospital after the doctor had certified that Babita Srivastava was in a fit mental condition to give her statement. PW-1 Anil Kumar and PW-2 Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of deceased Babita Srivastava were examined as witnesses of fact. They were declared hostile on the request of the prosecution after they failed to support the prosecution case in their evidence tendered during the trial. PW-4 Vishal Nath Rai, Officiating Magistrate proved the inquest report (Ext.Ka.2) of the deceased Babita Srivastava and other related documents photo nash (Ext.3), challan nash (Ext.4), letter addressed to C.M.O and R.I. (Ext.5 and Ext.6) and impression of specimen seal (Ext.7). PW-5 C.O. Rajbir Singh, the second Investigating Officer of the case proved the charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.10) and also the statements of PW-2 Smt. Savitri Devi and PW-1 Anil Kumar recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which they had fully supported the prosecution case as (Ext.Ka.8 and Ext.Ka.9). PW-6 Dr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava who had examined the injuries of deceased Babita Srivastava on 20.07.1987 at about 2:20 P.M. and prepared her injury report and recorded the same in Medico Legal Register proved the true copy of the Medico Legal Register as (Ext.Ka.8). He also deposed that it was possible that the burn injuries found on the dead body of the deceased was caused at about 12:30 P.M. He further deposed that at the time of the examination of the injuries of the deceased Babita Srivastava, a strong odour of kerosene oil was emanating from her body and she was finding it difficult to speak and her condition was serious. PW-7 Dr. U.S. Sinha, Reader and Head of Department, Forensic Medicine Department, Motilal Nehru Medical College, deposed that postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Babita Srivastava was performed by PW-10 Dr. S.C. Srivastava on 26.02.1987 at about 3:30 P.M. in his presence and Dr. S.C. Srivastava had prepared the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.12). 13. PW-7 Dr. U.S. Sinha, Reader and Head of Department, Forensic Medicine Department, Motilal Nehru Medical College, deposed that postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Babita Srivastava was performed by PW-10 Dr. S.C. Srivastava on 26.02.1987 at about 3:30 P.M. in his presence and Dr. S.C. Srivastava had prepared the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.12). 13. PW-8 S.I. Jagatpal Singh Parihar, the first Investigating Officer of this case, proved the site plan of the place of occurrence (Ext.Ka.13) and (material Exts.Ka.1 to Ka.7) and the recovery memo of the articles which were seized by him from the place of occurrence namely half burnt clothes, match-box, broken pieces of bangles, plastic jerrican (Ext.Ka.14). He also deposed that he had found kerosene oil in the jerrican and recorded the statement of deceased Babita Srivastava and her mother-in-law Smt. Chintamani and arrested the accused on 21.02.1987. PW-9 Constable Tirth Raj Shukla proved that he had taken the dead body of the deceased along with PW-13 Constable Satya Prakash Pandey to the mortuary of the Swaroop Rani Hospital. PW-4 Vishal Nath Rai, Magistrate had accompanied them to the mortuary where he had conducted the inquest on her dead body and prepared the inquest report and proved the same as (Ext.Ka.2). PW-10 Dr. S.C. Srivastava stated that he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Babita Srivastava on 26.02.1987 at about 3:30 P.M. in the presence of PW-7 Dr. U.S. Sinha and prepared her postmortem report (Ext.Ka.12). He also deposed that the body of the deceased was 90 percent burnt. PW-11 Ram Vilas Chaturvedi in his statement recorded before the Trial Court deposed that the information regarding the death of Babita Srivastava was recorded by him in G.D. vide rapat no. 22, 11:50 A.M. on 25.02.1987 (Ext.Ka.15). Thereafter, the case was converted to one u/s 302 I.P.C. PW-12 Shiv Shankar Tiwari, Additional City Magistrate, IIIrd, Allahabad in his evidence recorded during the trial, deposed that on the date of the incident, he had received telephonic information from C.O. City IInd about the occurrence and on his request, he had gone to Swaroop Rani Hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Babita Srivastava (Ext.Ka.16) after being personally satisfied and also after the doctor who had certified that the deceased was in a fit condition to give her statement. 14. 14. PW-14 Munni Lal Yadav, Head Constable, P.S. Keerganj, proved the check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.17) and the relevant G.D. entry (Ext.Ka.18). He also deposed that the articles relating to the case which was delivered to him in a sealed bundle along with one jerrican were deposited in P.S. Keerganj by S.I. Jagatpal Singh Parihar and necessary G.D. Entry in this regard was made vide rapat no. 22, 2350 hours and proved it as (Ext.Ka.2). 15. The accused-appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that deceased Babita Srivastava was his wife. He also admitted that at the time when Babita Srivastava had caught fire, he was present in the house and had attempted to save her. According to him, her wife had caught fire while cooking food on stove and his brother and mother got her admitted to the hospital. He also stated that a false F.I.R. was lodged against him by the police in collusion with PW-3 Nand Lal and a wrong charge-sheet had been submitted against him. The written report of the incident which was lodged in the police station was fake and manufactured. His brother had informed Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of Babita Srivastava and her brother Nand Lal about the incident. He had lastly stated that he had falsely been implicated in the present case. The defence examined Dr. M.K. Bhatia, Medical Officer Central Jail, Allahabad as D.W.1 who deposed that on 22.02.1987 at about 12 P.M., he had examined the injuries of appellant Dilip Kumar in Central Jail, Naini and had noted following injuries on his person:- (1) Superficial burn injury spread over an area of 3" x 2" in the middle of the left thigh (2) Superficial burn injury on right forearm spread over an area of 2" x 1-1/2" (3) Superficial burn injury on the right sleeve spread over an area of 3" x 1/2" 16. According to Dr. M.K. Bhatia, all the injuries found on the person of accused-appellant Dilip Kumar were simple and appeared to be two days before. He also deposed that it was possible that the injuries found on the person of accused appellant could be received while trying to dodge the fire. He however, deposed that he had not found any burn injuries on the palm of accused Dilip Kumar. 17. He also deposed that it was possible that the injuries found on the person of accused appellant could be received while trying to dodge the fire. He however, deposed that he had not found any burn injuries on the palm of accused Dilip Kumar. 17. After considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record both oral as well as documentary, the learned Xth Additional District Judge, Allahabad convicted the appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 18. Hence, this appeal. 19. We have very carefully perused the entire lower court record and heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned AGA assisted by Smt. Manju Thakur, Advocate for the State. 20. Record shows that marriage between deceased Babita Srivastava and the appellant Dilip Kumar was solemnized about an year before the occurrence which had taken place on 20.02.1987. The written report (Ext.Ka.1) of the occurrence was scribed by PW-3 Nand Lal, real brother of the deceased on the dictation of the deceased Babita Srivastava. From the perusal of the written report, it is crystal clear that on the date of the occurrence, the accused-appellant had started beating the deceased at about 10 A.M. for having brought inadequate dowry and had then set her ablaze after sprinkling kerosene oil on her. The written report also contains the recital that ever since her marriage, the accused-appellant had been torturing and maltreating her for having brought inadequate dowry and after she had been set ablaze by her husband, she had come out of her room into the court-yard, shouting for help. Her mother-in-law Smt. Chintamani and her brother-in-law Anil Kumar had tried to save her by pouring water on her and had then got her admitted to the hospital for treatment. 21. The doctrine of dying declaration is enshrined in the legal maxim Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire which means a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. The doctrine of Dying Declaration is enshrined in section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called as, Evidence Act) as an exception to the general rule contained in section 60 of the Evidence Act, which provides that oral evidence in all cases must be direct i.e., it must be the evidence of a witness, who says he saw it. The dying declaration is, in fact, the statement of a person, who cannot be called as witness and, therefore, cannot be cross-examined. Such statements themselves are relevant facts in certain cases. 22. In the case of Munnawar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2010 (70) ACC 853 (SC), the Apex Court held as under: "That a dying declaration can be relied upon if the deceased remained alive for a long period of time after the incident and died after recording of the dying declaration. That may be evidence to show that his condition was not overtly critical or precarious when the dying declaration was recorded." 23. It would be pertinent to note the case of Bhajju alias Karan Singh vs. State of M.P. 2012 (77) ACC 182 (SC) before the Apex Court which had almost identical facts. The dying declaration of the deceased was relied upon as the witnesses of fact did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile and similar defence was taken that the deceased had caught fire while she was cooking food. The Hon'ble Court referring to the case of Munnu Raja and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 3 SCC 104 relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant observed as under: "Reliance by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Munnu Raja and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 3 SCC 104 to contend that a dying declaration cannot be corroborated by the testimony of hostile witnesses is hardly of any help. As already noticed, none of the witnesses or the authorities involved in the recording of the dying declaration had turned hostile. On the contrary, they have fully supported the case of the prosecution and have, beyond reasonable doubt, proved that the dying declaration is reliable, truthful and was voluntarily made by the deceased. We may also notice that this very judgment relied upon by the accused itself clearly says that the dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration and can be made the basis of conviction. We may also notice that this very judgment relied upon by the accused itself clearly says that the dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration and can be made the basis of conviction. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment reads as under:- ".....It is well settled that though a dying declaration must be approached with caution for the reason that the maker of the statement cannot be subject to cross-examination, there is neither a rule of law nor a rule of prudence which has hardened into a rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated (see Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay). The High Court, it is true, has held that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses corroborated the dying declarations but it did not come to the conclusion that the dying declarations suffered from any infirmity by reason of which it was necessary to look out for corroboration." In para-22 of this report the Hon'ble Court has further held that- "The law is very clear that if the dying declaration has been recorded in accordance with law, is reliable and gives a cogent and possible explanation of the occurrence of the events, then the dying declaration can certainly be relied upon by the Court and could form the sole piece of evidence resulting in the conviction of the accused. This Court has clearly stated the principle that section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the Act) is an exception to the general rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Clause (1) of section 32 makes the statement of the deceased admissible, which is generally described as a dying declaration." The Apex Court relying upon the dying declaration of the deceased being consistent with the prosecution case which was fully corroborated by medical evidence did not disturb the concurrent findings of guilt of accused-appellant recorded by the two Courts. In view of the aforesaid preposition of the law the dying declaration of the deceased recorded in this case fulfils all the legal requirements and it is in consonance with the prosecution story as also the medical evidence. 24. Record shows that dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by PW-12 Shiv Shankar Tiwari (Ext.Ka.16) on 20.02.1987 at about 3:30 P.M. in the hospital. 24. Record shows that dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by PW-12 Shiv Shankar Tiwari (Ext.Ka.16) on 20.02.1987 at about 3:30 P.M. in the hospital. It would be useful to reproduce the dying declaration of the deceased which runs hereunder:- ^^c;ku fn;k fd ifr ls yM+kbZ gq;h FkhA 10 cts fnu esa >xM+k gqvk FkkA dg jgs Fks] rqEgkjs ?kj ls dqN ugha feykA eq>s ifr us ekjk] fQj feV~Vh dk rsy Mky fn;k fd vkt rqedks ekj MkysxsA lkl lks jgh FkhA ifr us gh tyk;kA Hkkxh rks lkl o nsoj us ikuh NksM+k vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA** 25. The dying declaration (Ext.Ka.16) of the deceased further refers to the certificate of the doctor to the effect that the patient was mentally sensible while giving her statement. The dying declaration has been proved by PW-12 Shiv Shankar Tiwari. Even the most superficial reading of the dying declaration of the deceased shows that it is the most natural narration of the incident and how it had taken place. There is absolutely no effort on her part to embellish or implicate all the family members of her husband. On the contrary, the deceased in her dying declaration has stated that after her husband had set her ablaze, her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law tried to save her life by pouring water on her. We do not find any reason to discard the dying declaration which appears to be fully trustworthy and inspires confidence. We further also do not find any reason why the deceased would falsely implicate the accused-appellant. Moreover, plea which was taken by the accused-appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that his wife Babita Srivastava had caught fire while she was cooking food on the stove has been found to be false. It is true that the two witnesses of fact PW-2 Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the deceased and PW-1 Anil Kumar have failed to support the prosecution case. But PW-3 Nand Lal, elder brother of the deceased has fully supported the prosecution case by deposing that when he had met her in the hospital, she was talking to the residents of the locality at about 1 P.M. which shows that she was in a position to interact. But PW-3 Nand Lal, elder brother of the deceased has fully supported the prosecution case by deposing that when he had met her in the hospital, she was talking to the residents of the locality at about 1 P.M. which shows that she was in a position to interact. Moreover, we do not find any reason to doubt the veracity of the dying declaration which fully supports the prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R. The fact stated by the deceased in her dying declaration that the appellant had after beating her, poured kerosene oil on her and then set her ablaze, find further corroboration from the articles seized by PW-8 S.I. Jagatpal Singh Parihar, the first Investigating Officer of the case, from the place of occurrence namely half burnt clothes, one plastic jerrican with kerosene oil, matchbox, broken pieces of bangles which were proved and exhibited as material Ext.Ka.1 to Ka.7). On the date of the occurrence, the deceased had been beaten by the accused-appellant and thereafter he had set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil on her. 26. The medical evidence on record fully collates the prosecution version as is evident from the evidence of PW-6 Dr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and PW-10 Dr. S.C. Srivastava, who have in their evidence recorded during the trial have fully corroborated the prosecution case that the deceased had died as a result of burn injuries sustained by her on being set ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on her. 27. Thus, upon a wholesome appraisal and critical analysis of the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has fully succeeded in proving that the deceased Babita Srivastava had received burn injuries on 20.02.1987 at about 12:30 P.M. in her house after her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze and as a result of aforesaid burn injuries, she had died on 24.02.1987 at about 1:30 P.M. We do not find that the learned Trial Judge committed any error, illegality, infirmity or perversity in convicting the appellant and sentencing him to imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C. 28. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 29. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 29. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad is directed to make every possible effort to trace out the accused-appellant Dilip Kumar who is absconding and send him to jail for serving out the remaining part of his sentence and submit his report in this regard to the Registrar General of this Court within three months. 30. Office is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment and order to Court concerned/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad for necessary follow up action.