JUDGMENT : Pritinker Diwaker, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.), in S.T. No.24/2010 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC & and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo S.I. for 15 days. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.03.2010, the accused/appellant consumed liquor and had not gone to his work place. The act of the appellant was objected by his wife Rani Bai upon which the accused/appellant poured kerosene oil on Rani Bai and set her ablaze. After being burnt, Rani Bai raised cries, came out from her room and upon seeing her, her minor daughter Pournima, aged 4 years and Durgeshwari, aged 8 years embraced her as a result of which both Poornima and Durgeshwari also sustained burn injuries. Injured Poornima, Durgeshwari and Rani Bai were taken to hospital where they were medically examined vide Ex.P/26, P/27 and P/28 by Dr. Bhojraj (PW/9), who noticed 50%, 40% and 100% superficial burn injuries respectively. On 14.03.2010 at 2.00 pm, dehati nalisi (Ex.P/46) was recorded at the instance of Rani Bai followed by FIR (Ex.P/47) at 7.30 pm under Section 307 of IPC against the accused/appellant. On 14.03.2010 itself dying declaration of Rani Bai was recorded vide Ex.P/20 by M.D. Tigala (PW/8)-Executive Magistrate. During treatment, deceased Rani Bai also made oral dying declaration before Shivbati Nishad (PW/4) wherein she has stated as to the manner in which she was burnt by the accused/appellant. On 26.03.2010, during treatment deceased Rani Bai succumbed to injuries in the hospital and immediately thereafter merg intimation (Ex.P/22) was recorded at 5.00 pm. On 27.03.2010, inquest on the body of Rani Bai was conducted vide Ex.P/8 and her body was sent for postmortem to Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur where postmortem examination on the body of deceased was conducted on same day by Dr. R.K. Singh (PW/11) who gave his report Ex.P/32 opining the cause of death to be cardio respiratory failure as a result of burn and its complications. Unfortunately, in the incident, on 30.03.2010, Poornima, daughter of the appellant and deceased Rani Bai also succumbed to her injuries. Merg intimation in respect of her death was recorded on 30.03.2010 vide Ex.P/10. R.K. Singh (PW/11) who gave his report Ex.P/32 opining the cause of death to be cardio respiratory failure as a result of burn and its complications. Unfortunately, in the incident, on 30.03.2010, Poornima, daughter of the appellant and deceased Rani Bai also succumbed to her injuries. Merg intimation in respect of her death was recorded on 30.03.2010 vide Ex.P/10. On same day, inquest on the body of Poornima was conducted vide Ex.P/11 and body was sent for postmortem examination to Govt. Hospital, Bemetara where postmortem examination on the body of deceased was conducted by Dr. M. Devdhar (PW/10) who gave his report Ex.P/31 opining the cause of death to be burn injury, hypoproteinemia and anemia. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court framed the charge against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC (on two counts). 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, while acquitting the accused/appellant for causing death of his daughter Poornima, has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for committing murder of his wife Rani Bai. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits : (i) That there is no eye-witness account to the incident and the accused/appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It has been argued that nature of circumstantial evidence is very weak and benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the accused/appellant. (ii) That dying declaration (Ex.P/20) of the deceased is said to have been recorded on 14.03.2010 at 12.30 pm whereas the fitness certificate was obtained from Doctor at 12.00 pm and, therefore, the said dying declaration is not reliable. (iii) That the accused/appellant himself suffered burn injures which is clear from his medical report (Ex.P/29) and it is he who took all the injured to the hospital, which shows that the incident was nothing but was accidental. 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that the conviction of the accused/appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that the conviction of the accused/appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. State counsel further submits that dehati nalisi (Ex.P/46) lodged by the deceased Rani Bai is in-fact her first dying declaration and likewise, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the dying declaration (Ex.P/20) recorded by the Executive Magistrate (PW/8). It has been also argued that apart from above two dying declaration the deceased also made oral dying declaration before PW/4 and this has been duly proved by PW/4. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Prakash Kumar Yadav (PW/1) and Sitaram Nishad (PW/2) turned hostile. Dhaniram Nishad (PW/3) has not stated anything specific against the appellant and at the later stage he too has been declared hostile. Shivbati Nishad (PW/4) - mother of the deceased has stated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant who used to consume excessive liquor. She has further stated that in the hospital when she met the deceased, she was informed by her (deceased) that she was burnt by the accused/appellant. Anand Nishad (PW/5), witness to seizure (Ex.P/2) and Tiharu Kewat (PW/6) have turned hostile. Amit Kumar (PW/7) is Patwari who prepared spot map vide Ex.P/14. M.D. Tigala (PW/8) is Executive Magistrate who has recorded dying declaration of the deceased vide Ex.P/20. As per Ex.P/20, the deceased has categorically stated before this witness that on the date of incident, the accused/appellant consumed liquor and when she demanded some money for household expenses, he started abusing her and after threatening, the accused/appellant poured kerosene oil on her, lit match and set her ablaze. She has also stated that she was taken to hospital by the neighbour. Before recording dying declaration (Ex.P/20) of the deceased, a certificate (Ex.P/19) was obtained from the Doctor that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the dying declaration. Dr. Bhojraj Mohnani (PW/9) did MLC of Pournima, Durgeshwari and Rani Bai vide Ex.P/26, P/27, P/28 respectively and found 50%, 40% & 100% superficial burn injuries on their body. Dr. Dr. Bhojraj Mohnani (PW/9) did MLC of Pournima, Durgeshwari and Rani Bai vide Ex.P/26, P/27, P/28 respectively and found 50%, 40% & 100% superficial burn injuries on their body. Dr. M. Devdhar (PW/10) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Pournima vide Ex.P/31 and found following injuries/symptoms:- (i) Body was cold, rigor mortis seen all over the body. (ii) Healed burn seen, which was at heeling stage. (iii) Nail beds were pale. (iv) Body was 30-35% superficial burnt, which was under healing process. According to autopsy surgeon, the cause of death was burn injury and mode was hypoproteinemia and anemia. 09. Dr. Raj Kumar Singh (PW/11) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Rani Bai vide Ex.P/32 and noticed following injuries/symptoms:- (i) Dressing present on chest, abdomen, both shoulder, both upper limbs & right lower limb & left thigh lower 1/2 part & left lower leg. (ii) White froth in nostrils. Wearing one metallic nose-pin on left ala of nose. Rigor mortis strongly present. (iii) Hypostasis could not bee seen due to burn. (iv) 30 to 40 burns (dupuytren's classification) on face (except wrinkling effect), neck, chest, abdomen, whole right upper limb (except distal palm & palmar aspect of fingers), perineum in patches. Both lower limbs (except soles), left upper limb whole. (v) Whole back (except neck part median folds of buttocks). Scalp hair signed at margin at places. According to autopsy surgeon, the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure due to burn and its complications. 10. Lalit Dewangan (PW/12) - Constable, Dharmanand Shukla (PW/13)-Sub Inspector, G. Gopal Pandey (PW/14) - Sub Inspector and Ram Singh (PW/15) - Constable, assisted in the investigation. Ganesh Ram Kurre (PW/16) - A.S.I and J.P.N. Singh (PW/17) - S.D.O., have done major part of the investigation. Dr. Rohit Jain (PW/17) provided treatment to Rani Bai, Pournima and Durgeshwari when they were in the hospital. 11. Close scrutiny of the evidence available on record makes it clear that on 14.03.2010, the accused/appellant came to his house after consuming liquor and had not gone to his work place. When his wife deceased Rani Bai objected to it and demanded some money from him for household work, the accused/appellant after threatening poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. When his wife deceased Rani Bai objected to it and demanded some money from him for household work, the accused/appellant after threatening poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. While Rani Bai came out from her room in burnt condition, her two daughters namely Pournima and Durgeshwari embraced her and both of them also sustained burn injuries. After the incident, deceased Rani Bai was taken to hospital where dehati nalisi (Ex.P/46) has been lodged on 14.03.2010 at 2.00 pm by herself and after her death this document can undoubtedly be treated as her dying declaration. In the dehati nalisi (Ex.P/46), she has stated as to the manner in which the incident took place and she was burnt by the accused/appellant. Thus, it is evident that it is the accused/appellant who set the deceased Rani Bai ablaze. That apart, on 14.03.2010, after obtaining medical certificate Ex.P/19 at 12.00 pm in respect of condition of the deceased Rani Bai of her being in fit state of mind, her dying declaration Ex.P/20 was recorded at 12.30 pm by PW/8 wherein she has stated that she was burnt by the accused/appellant. According to documents on record, the time gap between obtaining the certificate about the deceased being in fit state of mind and recording dying declaration is 30 minutes and thus authenticity of dying declaration cannot be doubted. All that apart, the deceased died after 12 days of the incident, which also indicate that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of giving dying declaration. Thus, we have no reason to disbelieve the statement of Executive Magistrate (PW/8). Likewise, the deceased has also made oral dying declaration before PW/4, who has duly supported the prosecution case stating therein the entire incident and complicity of the appellant. Taking into consideration the overall evidence, in particular, the dying declarations Ex.P/46, P/20, coupled with the oral dying declaration before PW/4 as also the non explanation to the proved incriminating circumstances by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. except making bald denial of the all, we are of the view that the trial Court was fully justified in convicting the accused/appellant for committing murder of the deceased. 13. The appeal thus has no substance and it is liable to be dismissed. Dismissal recorded accordingly. 13. The appeal thus has no substance and it is liable to be dismissed. Dismissal recorded accordingly. Appellant is reported to be in jail and therefore no further order regarding his arrest etc. is required.