JUDGMENT : The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Sundaramma, was residing in the adjacent Parushrama Road, with her daughter, since the previous five months. That when the complainant was in his house at about 9.45 p.m., on 30.11.2010, a local resident by name Ningaraju came and told him that the deceased had caught fire in her residence and was screaming. Immediately, he went to the spot and found the deceased was on fire and was howling. The neighbours were attempting to dowse the fire. One person who was present in the spot, stated that he would go and bring an autorickshaw to shift the deceased to the hospital. The deceased was continuing to scream in pain. Thereafter, the complainant shifted the deceased to K.R. Hospital, Mysuru with the help of his friend Sathish. 2. On the way to the hospital, the complainant asked the deceased about the incident. She told him that she married Mahadeva of Mavinakoppallu Village in T.Narasipura about 15 years ago and they have a daughter. That she came with her daughter to Mysuru about 7 years earlier and was residing at a house situated at 10th Cross, Ashokpuram, Mysuru. That one Touseef, the accused acquainted with her while she was going to the city for work. They developed an illicit relationship. He secured a rented house in Parusharama Road of K.N.Pura, that is where she is residing. Touseef was already married and had a daughter. He was residing with his wife and daughter in Alimnagar. That he was doing business of dealing with cars. 3. The day before the incident i.e., on 30.11.2012, she had gone to Mahadeshwara Hill Temple along with Touseef. They returned back at 11.00 a.m. Touseef had left her near the ring road. From there she came home in an auto rickshaw. Touseef telephoned her landline at about 11.30 a.m. She could not answer the phone since she was having a bath. Thereafter, he came in the afternoon, abused her in vulgar language and stated that he would come in the evening to settle all the issues. He would constantly taunt her questioning her chastity. He would also assault her. On 30.11.2010, at about 8.00 p.m., Touseef came to her house in a drunken state and picked up a quarrel as usual, by suspecting her fidelity, abused her in a filthy language and slapped her. He would constantly taunt her questioning her chastity. He would also assault her. On 30.11.2010, at about 8.00 p.m., Touseef came to her house in a drunken state and picked up a quarrel as usual, by suspecting her fidelity, abused her in a filthy language and slapped her. Thereafter, he brought kerosene oil from the kitchen, poured it on her and lit her on fire. She started screaming. Touseef went outside the house. People gathered there. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased succumbed to her injuries at about 2.55 a.m., on 1.12.2010 namely, on the night of 30.11.2010. 4. Based on the complaint vide Exhibit P1, the Police registered a case in Crime No.228 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section–302 of IPC and submitted an FIR against the accused. The chargesheet was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, marked Exhibits – P1 to P15(a) and 6 material objects. By the impugned judgment, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section–302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has filed the present appeal. 5.(a) The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial court committed an error in convicting the accused. That there is no motive for the commission of the offence. That there is no evidence to indicate that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased. That the alleged oral dying declaration cannot be believed. That even though the Police were aware of the incident on the previous day itself, the same has been suppressed by them. Therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted. (b). That the accident registers and the casesheet in the burnward has also not been produced by the prosecution. That the injuries sustained by the deceased has also not been explained by the prosecution. Therefore, he pleads that the trial court has misread the evidence and has wrongly convicted the Accused. Hence, he seeks for an acquittal. 6. On the other hand, the learned Addl.SPP disputes the same. He contends that the evidence led-in by the prosecution would clearly establish that the accused had a motive to commit the offence and it was he who poured the kerosene oil on the deceased and lit her. Hence, he seeks for an acquittal. 6. On the other hand, the learned Addl.SPP disputes the same. He contends that the evidence led-in by the prosecution would clearly establish that the accused had a motive to commit the offence and it was he who poured the kerosene oil on the deceased and lit her. That the deceased has stated the manner in which the offence was committed while being shifted to the hospital. That non-production of the accident register as well as the case sheets in the burn-wards is of no consequence. The other material led-in by the prosecution would clearly establish that they have proved their case to the hilt. There is no perversity in the judgment of the trial court that calls for interference. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. 8.(a) PW1 is the complainant. He has stated that on the date of the incident, he was in his house situated near the house of the deceased. At about 9.45 p.m., on 30.11.2010, Ningaraja, PW3 came and informed him that the deceased was on fire and she was screaming. He immediately went to the spot along with PW3. When they reached the house of the deceased, they saw the deceased was on fire. They wrapped her body with a bed sheet. There was nobody else in the house. Thereafter, an ambulance was summoned. That he was also present in the ambulance along with PW2 and PW3, and enquired with the deceased as to what happened. There she indicated that after she returned from the Mahadevshwara Hill Temple, at about 11.30 a.m., when she was having her bath, the phone rang but she could not pick up the call since she was having her bath. The same was enquired by the accused in the late afternoon as to why she did not pick up the telephone. He abused and assaulted her. Thereafter, he poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire. On the next date when PW1 went to the hospital, he was told that she had passed away. In the further examination-in-chief he has stated that when he along with the PW2 and PW3, were going to the house of the deceased, the accused who was present there told her that he would go and bring an auto to take Sundaramma the deceased to hospital. In the further examination-in-chief he has stated that when he along with the PW2 and PW3, were going to the house of the deceased, the accused who was present there told her that he would go and bring an auto to take Sundaramma the deceased to hospital. Thereafter, he did not return. (b). It is contended that there is a contradiction in the evidence of PW1, with regard to the presence of the accused. The same is sought to be extracted in the cross-examination, wherein it is suggested that the presence of the accused is not stated. When the evidence was being recorded thereafter in the further examination, he having stated so, the same would run contrary. Therefore, the evidence of this witness cannot be believed so far as the presence of the accused is concerned. (c). PW2 has stated that on the date of the incident after closing his shop, he went to the house of PW1, at that time PW3 Ningaraja, was very much scared and stated that the deceased had caught fire. Immediately he along with PW1 went to the house of Sundaramma. When they reached there, they found Sundaramma was on fire. The persons standing there covered her with a bedsheet in order to dowse the fire. At that time, the accused who was present there stated that he will go and bring an auto and went away from the scene of offence. However, he did not return. Thereafter, PW1 called the ambulance and they took the deceased in the ambulance. On the way, the deceased informed that when she had gone for her bath, the accused telephoned but she did not pick up the phone since she was having her bath. The same was questioned by him. The deceased stated that the accused assaulted her and he poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve this evidence. (d). PW3, Ningaraja, has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. However, except to the extent of informing PW1, the rest of his statement runs contrary to the case of the prosecution. (e). PW4 is a lady who is also called by the name Sundaramma. She has stated in her evidence with regard to the relationship of the deceased with the accused. That the deceased was staying with the accused. There was constant fight between them. (e). PW4 is a lady who is also called by the name Sundaramma. She has stated in her evidence with regard to the relationship of the deceased with the accused. That the deceased was staying with the accused. There was constant fight between them. That on the night of 30.11.2010 also, there was a fight between the Accused and the deceased. Thereafter, she heard the screaming of the deceased. Thereafter she along with Gowramma and Geetha, went to the house of the deceased. She noticed that the deceased was on fire and the accused was holding a kerosene can and a match box in his hand. When we enquired with Sundaramma as to how the incident occurred, the accused said that he will bring an auto to take the Sundaramma to the Hospital and thereafter did not return at all. The fire was dowsed by a bedsheet. By then PWs1, 2 and 3 and others came there, the ambulance was secured and Sundaramma was taken in the same. PW1 and were also in the ambulance. In the cross-examination she has denied the suggestion that a number of men would come and visit the house of the deceased. She has stated in the cross-examination that when she went to the house of the deceased, there was no one in the house except the deceased. She has further stated that Sundaramma was burning from the bottom namely, from the lower part of the body and her clothes were also on fire. She was standing, when the fire was burning. She kept asking for water. That there was no fire on her face. The door of the room was also opened. That the Police had come there even before she was taken in the ambulance. She has denied the suggestion that the deceased had committed suicide. She has denied that she did not see the accused on the date of the incident. (g). PW7, Smt.Geetha, is the neighbour who has stated in her evidence that, she heard a fight taking place in the house of the deceased at about 9.00 p.m., on 30.11.2010. When she went to the house of the deceased, in the rightside corner the deceased was screaming in pain. At that time the accused was holding a kerosene can and a match box. When she went to the house of the deceased, in the rightside corner the deceased was screaming in pain. At that time the accused was holding a kerosene can and a match box. When the accused saw them he threw away the kerosene can and match box and stated that he will go and bring an auto to take her to the hospital. In the cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that she did not see anybody in the scene of the offence. (h). PW8, Sri.Rakesh, works as a NGO. He has stated that he came to know that the deceased had burnt herself. He is witness to the Panchanama and the inquest Mahazar. (i). PW11, Sri.Suresh, is the owner of the house wherein the deceased was residing. He has stated in his evidence that when the rent agreement was executed in the name of the deceased, the accused was also present. (j). PW12, Sri.Nagesh.M, is the nephew of the house owner PW11. He has stated that the deceased and accused were staying together in the said house. That suspecting an illegal relationship, he had asked them to vacate the said house. (k). PW13, Sri.Manjunath D.S., is the male nurse in the ambulance who treated the deceased, when she was being taken from the house to the hospital. He has stated that the deceased was being questioned with regard to the incident. However, the deceased kept replying ‘yes’ and ‘no’. In the crossexamination, it is elicited that in view of the condition of the deceased, an oxygen mask was put on her face. In the cross-examination he states that he has admitted the deceased to the K.R.Hospital Mysuru. (l). PW14, Sri.Manukumar, is the driver of the ambulance. (m). PW15, Dr.Chandrashekara T.N., is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. He has stated that the head and sole of the feet were not burnt. That there were 95% burns inflicted on the deceased. (n). PW16, Sri.Ramesh.S., is the Police Constable who carried the FIR, ExhibitP8 to the Magistrate. (o). PW17, Sri.Govindanaika, is the Head Constable who apprehended the accused on 03.12.2010 namely, on the 3rd day after the incident. (p). PW18, Sri.R.Srikanta, the PSI, registered the FIR on the next day 11.45 a.m., namely on 01.12.2010. (q). PW19, Sri.Mathew Thomas, is the Investigating Officer. He has stated the manner in which he conducted the investigation. (o). PW17, Sri.Govindanaika, is the Head Constable who apprehended the accused on 03.12.2010 namely, on the 3rd day after the incident. (p). PW18, Sri.R.Srikanta, the PSI, registered the FIR on the next day 11.45 a.m., namely on 01.12.2010. (q). PW19, Sri.Mathew Thomas, is the Investigating Officer. He has stated the manner in which he conducted the investigation. That since nobody claimed the body of the deceased, the body was kept in the Mortuary. That after arresting the accused, he was sent for a medical examination. In the crossexamination he has denied the suggestion that the deceased committed suicide. He denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused. 9. Based on these evidences, the trial court was of the view that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It was of the view that the evidence on record would clearly indicate that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased, lit her on fire and fled away from the scene. His presence has been seen by the eyewitnesses. PWs1, 2 and 4 have stated the manner in which the incident occurred. The same has been corroborated by PW1. The recovery of the burnt pant of the accused would also indicate that there were burnt pieces of plastic portion of the fan which was found in the room where the incident occurred. The spot mahazar would indicate that the fan in the room was totally burnt. That there were plastic pieces which had fallen. 10.(a) The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no motive to commit the offence. The evidence on record namely that of PWs 4, 5 and 6 speak about the relationship between the accused and the deceased. PWs 1 and 3 have stated that on the date of the incident, they saw the accused in the spot. The manner in which the same has occurred, has also been narrated by the deceased. That in the morning they went to the temple and they returned back. When the accused telephoned her on the landline, she did not pick up the phone since she was having her bath. Thereafter, the accused came to her house questioned her fidelity as to why she did not pick up the phone and even assaulted her. (b). That in the morning they went to the temple and they returned back. When the accused telephoned her on the landline, she did not pick up the phone since she was having her bath. Thereafter, the accused came to her house questioned her fidelity as to why she did not pick up the phone and even assaulted her. (b). The material on record would indicate that the deceased and the accused were living together and were having a relationship. It cannot be said that they were strangers. The chastity of the deceased was being questioned. The accused was enraged that even though he telephoned her she did not pick up the telephone. It is on this ground that the prosecution was able to establish the motive for commission of the offence against the deceased. Even otherwise, there are eye witnesses to the incident. Hence, the question of motive fades into insignificance. 11. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no evidence to indicate that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased. The statement made by the deceased while she was being taken to the hospital, is that the deceased poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire. Furthermore, the evidence of PW4 indicates that when she went to the house of the deceased, the accused was standing there holding a kerosene can and a match box in terms of MOs1 and 4, respectively. Therefore, this evidence is sufficient to hold that there was nobody in the house except the deceased and the accused. The accused was seen holding the kerosene can with a match box and the deceased had caught fire. Therefore, it is conclusively proved that it was the accused alone who had poured the kerosene and lit fire to the deceased. 12.(a) So far as the oral dying declaration is concerned, it is contended that the same cannot be accepted. That the evidence of the Doctor, PW15 would indicate that the deceased had sustained 95% burn injuries. Therefore, the deceased could not have narrated the entire manner in which the incident had occurred. (b). The evidence of PW15 would indicate that even though the deceased had sustained 95% burn injuries, the head and the sole of the feet of the deceased were not burnt. There is no evidence to indicate that the deceased had sustained burn injuries on her head. (b). The evidence of PW15 would indicate that even though the deceased had sustained 95% burn injuries, the head and the sole of the feet of the deceased were not burnt. There is no evidence to indicate that the deceased had sustained burn injuries on her head. She had sustained burns on the rest of the body. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not in a position to speak. 13.(a) It is further contended that the nurse in the ambulance namely, PW13, has stated in the crossexamination that an oxygen mask was put on her face. (b). However, there is no narration by the witness that the deceased was not in a position to speak at all. In his evidence, he has stated that the deceased was being questioned as to how the incident had occurred and the same was answered in ‘yes’ and ‘no’ format by the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that the oral dying declaration cannot be believed. The evidence of the witness would indicate that the head was not burnt. There was no evidence to indicate that she was not able to speak, whereas there is sufficient evidence to indicate that when the questions being asked, they were answered by her. 14.(a) The further allegation is that the Police had suppressed the entire sequence of the incident. That the Police were present even before the deceased could be taken to the hospital. Therefore, it is contended that the entire prosecution case has been suppressed. That there has been a tampering by the prosecution. That when the Police were present even before the deceased could be taken to the hospital, nothing has been done by them. (b). In the crossexamination of PW1, it is extracted that when the deceased was brought to the hospital, there were no Doctors at all. Moreover, she was still alive at that point of time. That she succumbed to the injuries only about 2.30 a.m., namely on the night of 30.11.2010, i.e., on 01.12.2010. It is only in the morning when PW1 came to the hospital that he came to know that she had passed away. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged and an FIR was registered. The evidence of the Nurse, PW18, would further indicate that there were no relatives, when the deceased was brought to the hospital or on the next day. (c). It is only in the morning when PW1 came to the hospital that he came to know that she had passed away. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged and an FIR was registered. The evidence of the Nurse, PW18, would further indicate that there were no relatives, when the deceased was brought to the hospital or on the next day. (c). On considering the evidence, we are of the view that there is no suppression of facts by the prosecution nor is there any tampering. Even though the police were said to be present even before the deceased could be taken to the hospital, the police were in the process of treating the deceased. When the deceased was admitted to the hospital there were no doctors to treat her at all. She was still alive. She died in the night. Thereafter the complaint was registered. The investigating officer has further stated that since the body was not claimed, it was kept in the mortuary. Hence, on this ground also it cannot be said that there is any suppression of the case by the prosecution. The witnesses have consistently stated that not only was there absence of doctors but also absence of any relatives of the deceased. 15.(a) The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of H.C.KARIGOWDA @ SRINIVASA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HOLENARASIPURA TOWN POLICE, reported in ILR 2013 KAR 992, with reference to para nos.18 and 19 and contends that if the complaint is registered after reaching the spot and after due deliberation, consultation and discussion, such a complaint cannot be treated as FIR, it would be only a statement made during investigation and hit by Section – 162 of Cr.P.C. In the facts narrated therein, it has been noted that, the Police had come to the scene of occurrence much prior to the coming into existence of ExhibitP2, in the Hospital. Therefore, much water has flown, before ExhibitP2 came into existence. The eyewitnesses were none other than the brothers and relatives of the two deceased. Therefore the Division Bench therein came to the conclusion that the delay that has been occasioned by the prosecution has helped them to plant the eyewitnesses, who are none other than the brother and the relatives of the deceased. The eyewitnesses were none other than the brothers and relatives of the two deceased. Therefore the Division Bench therein came to the conclusion that the delay that has been occasioned by the prosecution has helped them to plant the eyewitnesses, who are none other than the brother and the relatives of the deceased. The reason why the prosecution case was disbelieved in the aforesaid judgment relied on by the appellant’s counsel is that the witnesses who were planted by the prosecution were brothers and relatives of the deceased. Therefore, their evidences were disbelieved. However, that is not the case herein. (b). Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF A.P. VS. PUNATI RAMULU AND OTHERS, reported in 1994 Supp (1) (Cri) 590, with reference to para–5 therein to state that on identical questions of fact, PWs1, 2 and 3 were related to the deceased. Therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR was looked at with suspicion, since the prosecution has planted the relatives of the deceased who are interested witnesses. (c). The facts of the instant case are different. Even assuming that there was a delay in lodging the FIR or registering the complaint, it cannot be said that the prosecution has created a false case against the accused. The witnesses who supported the case of the prosecution are not related to the deceased. None of the witnesses had any relationship with the deceased or with the accused. In the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the delay was held to be fatal in view of the fact that the eyewitnesses were created who were related to the deceased. Under this circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court presumed that the delay was deliberately created by the prosecution to propup the witnesses. Admittedly, that is not the case herein. In view of absence of any relationship between the accused and the deceased with the witnesses, the delay by itself would not render the case of the prosecution to be doubtful. 17.(a) The further contention is that the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted, since they have failed produce the accident register, as well as the case sheet of the burns-ward. (b). The evidence of the Investigating Officer would indicate that when the deceased was brought to the hospital she was still alive. 17.(a) The further contention is that the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted, since they have failed produce the accident register, as well as the case sheet of the burns-ward. (b). The evidence of the Investigating Officer would indicate that when the deceased was brought to the hospital she was still alive. Thereafter, she died at about 2.30 a.m., on 01.12.2010. There were nobody to admit her to the hospital. Therefore, the evidence of PW13 the nurse, that he admitted her to the hospital. After she died, there was nobody to even claim the body. Therefore, the body was kept in the mortuary. Therefore, the production of the accident register or the case sheet in the burns-ward, therefore, becomes inconsequential. Even if same is not produced, the same does not affect the case of the prosecution in any manner in view of the evidence led-in by the prosecution with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased, the presence of the accused, as well as he running from the scene of offence. 18.(a) The further contention is that the Investigating Officer, PW18 has stated that he referred the accused to the Hospital for treatment. Therefore it is contended that the accused had sustained injuries in the course of dowsing the fire and therefore the same has been suppressed by the prosecution. A suggestion was made by the accused that the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, it is contended that since the evidence pertaining to the injuries sustained by the accused has not been explained, the prosecution case cannot be accepted (b). We are of the view that such a contention cannot be accepted. The statement made by the Investigating Officer is that the accused was referred for medical examination. So far as this contention is concerned, the same runs contrary to the evidence of the witnesses PW1, 2 and 4 who have seen the accused at the scene of the offence. They have seen him holding the kerosene can and the match box. It was the accused who told them that he will go and bring an auto rickshaw to take his wife to the hospital. Thereafter, he disappears from the scene. Insofar the suggestion by the accused that the deceased committed suicide is concerned, none of the witnesses speak about the efforts made by the accused in order to dowse the fire of the deceased. Thereafter, he disappears from the scene. Insofar the suggestion by the accused that the deceased committed suicide is concerned, none of the witnesses speak about the efforts made by the accused in order to dowse the fire of the deceased. In fact, the conduct of the accused itself is doubtful, since when the deceased was on fire not only he does not make any effort to dowse the fire, but runs away from the scene of the incident, on the pretext of going to bring an auto to take her to the hospital. (c). The witness have also not stated nor has it been elicited in the crossexamination as to whether they noticed any injury sustained on the accused. They do not speak of any injuries he has sustained. Therefore, it still remains doubtful whether the accused really sustained the injuries during the incident or on some other incident. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and the material on record. 20. At this stage, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that even though the prosecution case is to be accepted, the same would not attract Section – 302 of IPC and at the most, it would stand attracted by Section–304 (1) of IPC. However, having considered the contention as well as the material on record, we are unable to accept the same. The plea of the appellant that it was in the sudden fit of the anger that the incident took place would also run contrary to the evidence on record. PWs 1, 2 and 4 have clearly stated that the accused intentionally poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. Even at that stage, there was absolutely no remorse so far as the accused is concerned in trying to save the deceased. On the contrary he runs away from the scene of the offence. The contention of the appellant would have been considered more sympathetically, if there was any evidence to indicate that there was any effort made by the accused to save the deceased. He does nothing of that sort. The witnesses have seen him run away from the scene of offence. Therefore, it would be difficult to accept the contention of the appellants that the lesser offence under section – 304 (1) of IPC would be attracted. 21. He does nothing of that sort. The witnesses have seen him run away from the scene of offence. Therefore, it would be difficult to accept the contention of the appellants that the lesser offence under section – 304 (1) of IPC would be attracted. 21. We do not find any perversity in the reasons assigned by the trial court. Consequently, the judgment dated 05.01.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Mysuru in S.C.No.81 of 2011, convicting the accused and sentencing him to life imprisonment is confirmed. The appellant shall serve the remaining period of sentence. He is entitled to a setoff under Section – 428 of Cr.P.C., for the period of detention already served by him in this case.