JUDGMENT : N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. Aggrieved over the life sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by Judgment dated 09.12.2011 in S.C.No.48 of 2009, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant. 2. The brief facts leading to the prosecution case are as follows: (i) The deceased Sheela is the wife of P.W.1-Johnson. The accused is the neighbour of P.W.1 and the deceased. P.W.2-Kumar is the brother of the deceased Sheela. P.W.3-Subitha is the wife of P.W.2-Kumar. They are also residing in the same locality. P.W.1 and the accused had developed illegal contact, which resulted in quarrel between the deceased and P.W.1. On 01.05.2008, at 07.00 p.m., a kitten reared by the deceased went to the house of the accused. The accused threw it away and abused the deceased. The deceased informed the same to P.W.1. He also abused the deceased and the deceased also quarreled with P.W.1. At about 09.00 p.m., when the deceased came out from her house, the accused poured kerosene on her and lighted a match-stick and ran away from the place of occurrence. The deceased sustained burn injuries all over her body. Immediately, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 doused the fire and took the deceased to the Kulasekharam Sree Mookambika Medical College Hospital. (ii) P.W.9, the Medical Officer, attached to Sree Mookambika Medical College Hospital, admitted the deceased at 00.30 Hours on 02.05.2008 and gave first aid and also gave an intimation [Ex.P.11] to the Police. He issued Accident Register [Ex.P.12]. It is the evidence of P.W.9 that the deceased was brought to the hospital by one Azees and he had stated that the deceased was set ablaze by the neighbourhood lady. P.W.9, after giving first aid, referred the deceased to the Asaripallam Government Hospital. (iii) Thereafter, P.W.5-S.Padma, Judicial Magistrate, after receipt of requisition [Ex.P.3] from the Asaripallam Government Hospital to record dying declaration, rushed to the Government Hospital at 06.15 a.m., and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in the presence of the Medical Officer [P.W.10]. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that the deceased was fit state of mind to give dying declaration and the deceased had given a statement that the accused poured kerosene and set her fire. Her dying declaration is Ex.P.4. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that the deceased was fit state of mind to give dying declaration and the deceased had given a statement that the accused poured kerosene and set her fire. Her dying declaration is Ex.P.4. (iv) P.W.8-Sub-Inspector of Police, after receipt of intimation from the Asaripallam Government Hospital, went to the Hospital and recorded the statement from the deceased [Ex.P.9] and registered a case in Crime No.101 of 2008 under Section 307 IPC under Ex.P.10-printed First Information Report and forwarded the First Information Report to the Court and copy to the Superior officers. (v) P.W.11-Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar and rough sketch [Ex.P.14], seized the Material Objects from the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested the accused and sent her to remand and on receipt of the death intimation of the deceased [Ex.P.15], altered the crime into one under Section 302 IPC under Ex.P.16 and also gave a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer's report is Ex.P.17. (vi) The Medical Officer [P.W.6] conducted autopsy over the deceased as per requisition [Ex.P.5] and issued Post-mortem Certificate [Ex.P.6] and finally, issued Ex.P.7 stating that the deceased died due to burn injuries and its complication. (vii) P.W.11-Inspector of Police, in continuation of the investigation, obtained chemical examination report [Ex.P.18] and Serology report [Ex.P.19] and finally, laid final report as against the accused under Section 302 IPC. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.19 and MOs.1 to 3 were marked. 4. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against her, she denied the same as false. However, she neither choose to examine any witnesses nor to mark any document. 5. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the accused guilty and accordingly, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. However, she neither choose to examine any witnesses nor to mark any document. 5. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the accused guilty and accordingly, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/sole accused has come up with this appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the dying declaration recorded by P.W.5 and the statement recorded by P.W.8. There are serious discrepancies with regard to the timing of the dying declaration. The contention of the learned counsel is that the Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement, obtained right thumb impression of the deceased, whereas, P.W.5-Judicial Magistrate obtained left thumb impression. Both the statements appear to have been recorded at the same time. Therefore, the dying declaration itself is unreliable. 7. The learned counsel would further contend that before the Medical Officer, one Azees had given a statement to the effect that the neighbourhood lady poured kerosene. The said Azees has not been examined. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is doubtful and contradictory, since in their evidence, they have spoken as if they are eye witnesses to the occurrence, but, whereas, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, they have clearly stated that they reached the spot only after the occurrence. Therefore, their evidence is also not reliable. P.W.1, the husband of the deceased himself admitted that the deceased had tendency to commit suicide. Thus, possibility of committing suicide by the deceased due to quarrel between the husband and wife cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the offence under Section 302 IPC has not been made out. At any event, it is the contention of the learned counsel that there was no motive whatsoever for the accused to cause the death of the deceased. The entire materials available on record would show that the occurrence took place in petty quarrel and heat of passion. Therefore, the accused had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased. At the most, her act will come under Section 304 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. Hence, he prayed for modification of sentence. 8. The entire materials available on record would show that the occurrence took place in petty quarrel and heat of passion. Therefore, the accused had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased. At the most, her act will come under Section 304 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. Hence, he prayed for modification of sentence. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the dying declaration has clinchingly established the fact that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her fire. There are dying declarations which are consistent with each other. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court is well balanced and it does not require any interference. 9. In the light of the above submissions, now, it has to be analyzed as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 10. It is not in dispute that the accused one Rani is the neighbour of the deceased Sheela and P.W.1. The law was set in motion on the basis of Ex.P.9-the statement given by the deceased to P.W.8 in the hospital. The occurrence took place on 01.05.2008 evening hours. P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, in his evidence, has stated that at about 09.00 p.m., when he returned to home, the deceased told her that there was a quarrel between herself and the accused. After some time, the accused poured kerosene on the deceased, which was doused and later, the deceased was taken to the hospital. P.W.1 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 11. Though P.W.2 and P.W.3, the brother and sister-in-law of the deceased, in their evidence, have stated that as if they are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, their version about witnessing the occurrence is unreliable, for the simple reason, that their version is highly improved in the Court. Before the Revenue Divisional Officer, they have categorically stated that they reached the spot only after the occurrence and only accompanied the deceased to the Hospital. Now, the fact remains that admittedly, the deceased succumbed to injuries due to burn injuries and its complication as per Ex.P.6 and the evidence of the post-mortem doctor. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 also clearly established the injuries sustained by the deceased on 01.05.2008. 12. Now, the fact remains that admittedly, the deceased succumbed to injuries due to burn injuries and its complication as per Ex.P.6 and the evidence of the post-mortem doctor. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 also clearly established the injuries sustained by the deceased on 01.05.2008. 12. P.W.9, the Medical Officer, attached to Sri Mookambika Medical College Hospital, has given first aid to the deceased on 02.05.2008, at 00.30 hours. He has also given Accident Register [Ex.P.12]. His evidence also indicates that one Azees has brought the deceased to the hospital and he has stated that the neighbourhood lady has poured kerosene on the deceased. His evidence has clearly indicated that at that stage, the deceased was not in a position to orientation. Therefore, he had referred the deceased to the Asaripallam Government Hospital. 13. P.W.5, Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of intimation from the Asaripallam Government Hospital, at early morning, went to the hospital and ascertained the mental conditions of the deceased in the presence of P.W.10-Medical Officer. P.W.10, in his evidence, has clearly stated that the deceased was fit state of mind to give dying declaration at the relevant point of time. After ascertaining the position, P.W.5 recorded the dying declaration. Ex.P.4-dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, when carefully seen, the deceased stated that there was a quarrel between the husband and wife on 01.05.2008. Thereafter, at about 08.00 p.m., the accused poured kerosene on her and set her fire. There are no materials whatsoever brought on record to show that the deceased was subjected to tutoring by her relatives before such dying declaration. The evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.10, when carefully seen, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the same. 14. Similarly, Ex.P.9, the statement recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, after the dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate, also clearly shows that after the quarrel between the husband and wife, when the deceased left the house, the accused poured kerosene and set her fire and though P.W.8 obtained right thumb impression, it is to be noted that P.W.8 has recorded the statement after recording the dying declaration by the Judicial Magistrate. This Court is of the view that merely because the right thumb impression was obtained by the Sub Inspector of Police, but, whereas, the Judicial Magistrate has obtained left thumb impression, the entire statement cannot be disbelieved. This Court is of the view that merely because the right thumb impression was obtained by the Sub Inspector of Police, but, whereas, the Judicial Magistrate has obtained left thumb impression, the entire statement cannot be disbelieved. Admittedly, the deceased was in continuous treatment and intravenous fluids were continuously given. The Judicial Magistrate, in her evidence, has clearly stated that since the deceased was not in a position to put her signature, she obtained her left thumb impression and P.W.8, in her evidence, has clearly stated that at the time she recorded her statement, through left hand, intravenous fluids were administered. Therefore, nothing wrong in obtaining thumb impression of the right hand at the relevant point of time. Therefore, there is no ground made out to disbelieve the dying declaration. 15. From the above, in our considered view, the prosecution was able to show that the accused only poured kerosene and set the deceased fire. The medical evidence also proved that the deceased died on 09.05.2008 due to complication of burn injuries. The dying declaration is clear and does not suffer from any infirmity. That by itself is sufficient to base a conviction, since it is a substantial piece of evidence. There is no corroboration required and the same itself can be relied upon to base a conviction. 16. In the above background, the other circumstances available on record, when carefully seen, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly indicate that prior to the occurrence, there was quarrel not only between the deceased and the accused and also between the deceased and P.W.1 about the alleged illegal intimacy of P.W.1 with the accused. Probably, that may be the reason for P.W.1 resiling himself from his submissions and got himself declared as hostile witness by the prosecution. Whereas, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 shows that there was illegal relationship between the accused and P.W.1 and due to such relationship, there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and P.W.1. The dying declaration recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate also clearly indicates that there was quarrel between P.W.1 and the deceased on the date of occurrence and at that time only, the accused poured kerosene. The dying declaration recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate also clearly indicates that there was quarrel between P.W.1 and the deceased on the date of occurrence and at that time only, the accused poured kerosene. Ex.P.9 statement recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police also shows that the kitten reared by the deceased went to the house of the accused, which led to the serious quarrel between both of them and the same was reported to P.W.1 and thereafter, when the deceased came out of the house, the accused poured kerosene on her. These facts clearly indicate that there was a quarrel between the deceased and her husband in connection with his relationship with the accused, which probably prompted the accused to pour kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. The entire occurrence appears to have taken place in continuation of the quarrel between the husband and wife and accusing the accused due to her relationship with P.W.1. Probably, the same led to the accused to pour kerosene and set the deceased fire with the intention of causing her death. Except the above quarrel, there was no serious motive whatsoever existed between the accused and the deceased at the relevant point of time. These facts clearly indicate that the accused, though did not have any intention to cause death of the deceased, in a triangle quarrel indulging her fidelity, had lost her self-control and poured kerosene on the deceased and fit of anger, lighted match-stick also. 17. The circumstances narrated above clearly indicate that the accused would have committed such offence in a sudden provocation and in heat of passion and immediately threw the matchstick and left her house. This fact clearly indicates that only to cause some injury on the body of the deceased, she did such act. Therefore, we are of the view that the act of the accused would fall certainly within the ambit of Section 304(i) IPC, since she had an intention to cause bodily injury on the deceased. Therefore, we are of the view that the offence under Section 302 IPC would not attract in this case. 18. Therefore, we are of the view that the act of the accused would fall certainly within the ambit of Section 304(i) IPC, since she had an intention to cause bodily injury on the deceased. Therefore, we are of the view that the offence under Section 302 IPC would not attract in this case. 18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:- The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the appellant/sole accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and instead, the appellant/sole accused is convicted under Section 304(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eights years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand only], in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. It is further directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant/sole accused shall be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.