JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeals are preferred against the same Judgment and Order, passed by the Court below. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they are taken up together for disposal, by common Judgment. 2. Crl. A. No.477/2012 is preferred by the appellant/accused, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 29.11.2011 passed in S.C. No.49/2011, on the file of the V Fast Track Court at Madhugiri, wherein the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The connected appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved by the sentence aspect of imposing simple imprisonment for the life time against the accused and praying the Court to impose rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The appellants in both the cases challenged the Judgment and Order of the Court below on the grounds in their respective appeal memorandums. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that; One Narasamma of Veeralagondi village, Pavagada Taluk, filed the complaint before the Police on 30.10.2010 stating that on 29.10.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., Sanjeevamma, her neighbour, who was living by the side of her house has served mutton curry to her brother-in-law Narasimhappa as the evening meals. At the same time, the accused came to their house and requested Sanjeevamma to serve him also mutton curry and food. Further, he demanded for the amount of widow pension from Sanjeevamma to give him, for which Sanjeevamma refused to give the amount and to serve the food. The accused became furious against her and took out the kerosene can from the house and poured on her and took out a match box from his pocket and set her on fire. The complainant and Narasimhappa tried to extinguish the fire, but, Sanjeevamma suffered burn injuries all over the body. The accused ran away from the spot. The complainant and said Narasimhappa admitted Sanjeevamma to Pavagada General hospital at about 9.30 p.m. The Police were informed about the case and they came and took statement of Sanjeevamma, in which, she has specifically stated that the accused had poured kerosene and set her on fire intending to finish her. In the same night at about 3.30 p.m. injured Sanjeevamma died in the hospital. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint at about 6.30 a.m. on 30.10.2010. In the same night at about 3.30 p.m. injured Sanjeevamma died in the hospital. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint at about 6.30 a.m. on 30.10.2010. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly F.I.R. came to be registered for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. But, after the demise of said Sanjeevamma and as per the Police requisition, offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. came to be inserted in the said case in place of Section 307 of I.P.C. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C The learned Fast Track Court Judge after hearing both sides framed the charge against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and when the charge was read-over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the charge was framed and his plea was also recorded. Then the matter was set-down for trial. In support of its contention, the prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 16, produced documents Exs.P1 to 19 and also got marked the material objects as M.Os.1 to 7. Then, the accused has been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and his statement came to be recorded. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were got marked. After hearing the arguments on both the sides and after considering the materials on record, both oral and documentary, ultimately the learned Fast Track Court Judge held that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentence was also imposed accordingly. 5. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction, the appellant preferred the appeal challenging the said Judgment and Order on the grounds mentioned at Para Nos.7 to 18 of the appeal memorandum in the appeal preferred by the accused. So also, regarding the sentence aspect, the State also challenged the legality and correctness of the sentence on the grounds mentioned at Para Nos.1 to 6 of the appeal memorandum, preferred by the State. 6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and also the learned Addl. S.P.P. appearing for the appellant in the appeal preferred by the State. 7. 6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and also the learned Addl. S.P.P. appearing for the appellant in the appeal preferred by the State. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused made the submission that the case of the prosecution rests on the dying declarationEx.P12, alleged to have been given by deceased Sanjeevamma. He submitted that except this evidence, there is no other acceptable and cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to show the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. Learned counsel would draw our attention to the entire material i.e., paper book, evidence portion of the prosecution witnesses as it relates to dying declarationEx.P12. He also refers to Ex.P12 and other documents in that regard. Referring to these materials, he made submission that the evidence adduced by the prosecution will not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court that deceased Sanjeevamma really made such a dying declaration before her death. He submitted that before accepting the dying declaration, the Court has to take cautious steps whether it is acceptable or not. 8. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant/accused also refers to the evidence of prosecution witnesses and made submission. The factum that the accused person was staying with the deceased in another house itself was not established to the satisfaction of the Court. In that regard also he refers to the oral evidence and submitted that the prosecution evidence in this connection is not believable and self-contradictory to each other. He made submission that at one breath, the prosecution witness deposed before the Court that when they entered into the house of Sanjeevamma, she was lying there and she was dead. But, at another breath, it is his contention that she was taken to the hospital wherein her statement came to be recorded. Hence, he also made the submission regarding the name of the accused person and made the submission that his correct name is ‘Badagi Durgappa’ whereas, in the prosecution case, his name has been mentioned as ‘Badagi Rangappa’. Hence, even the correct name of the accused person is also not established by the prosecution. He also refers to the postmortem report and the doctor’s opinion as to the cause of death. Hence, even the correct name of the accused person is also not established by the prosecution. He also refers to the postmortem report and the doctor’s opinion as to the cause of death. He submitted that as injured Sanjeevamma sustained 90-95% burnt injuries allover the body, she was not at all in a position to speak. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that all these material aspects were not at all properly appreciated by the learned Fast Track Court Judge and he wrongly proceeded in the matter to convict the appellant/accused. Hence, he submitted that the appeal preferred by the appellant/accused be allowed and the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the Court below be set aside and the appellant/accused be acquitted from the said charge. 9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant/accused relied upon the following decisions: (1) AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1173 [Dalip Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab]; (2) AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1879 [Meera Vs. State of Rajasthan]; (3) AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2457 [Govind Narain and another Vs. State of Rajasthan]; and (4) The unreported Judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 11.10.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No.345/2012 [Chikkanna Shetty Vs. The State of Karnataka]. Referring to relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decisions also, learned counsel submitted that dying declarationEx.P12 relied upon by the prosecution cannot be said to be the document, which has been proved to the satisfaction of the Court. 10. Per contra, learned Addl. S.P.P. made the submission that the dying declaration has been established with cogent and satisfactory material. He would also draw our attention to the entire material in this regard, both oral and documentary. He submitted that the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more importantly, the Police Officers and also the doctors clearly goes to show that when deceased Sanjeevamma was taken to the hospital, she was conscious and was also in a fit state of mind to give such a statement. Hence, he made the submission that the dying declaration has been made when she was having consciousness and fit state of mind at that time. Only because of some minor infirmities in following the procedural aspects, the dying declaration cannot be rejected. Hence, he made the submission that the dying declaration has been made when she was having consciousness and fit state of mind at that time. Only because of some minor infirmities in following the procedural aspects, the dying declaration cannot be rejected. Referring to other merits of the case, he made the submission that being the fact, the accused person was staying with the deceased in her house has been established with the evidence of the very son of the deceased, so also, with the help of other witnesses examined. Hence, he submitted that to show that both were living together, there is an acceptable materials placed on record. It is also his submission that when once it has been established by the prosecution that the deceased as well as the accused person only were residing in the said house when the incident took place in the residential house, it is for the accused person to explain the circumstances as to how the death has taken place. He submitted that in this case, the accused has not been able to offer any such explanation. Therefore, he submitted that the materials clearly goes to show that it is the accused himself committed the murder of Sanjeevamma by pouring kerosene and litting fire to her. Hence, he submitted that the learned Fast Track Court Judge has taken into consideration all these facts, properly appreciated the entire materials on record and has rightly come to the conclusion in convicting the appellant/accused for the said offence. Hence, he submits that there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the appellant/accused and the same be dismissed. 11. So far as the appeal preferred by the State is concerned on the aspect of sentence, the learned Addl. S.P.P. made the submission that when it has been established with satisfactory material that the accused has committed the murder of Sanjeevamma by pouring kerosene and litting fire to her, looking to the seriousness and gravity of the offence, the learned Fast Track Court Judge ought to have imposed rigorous life imprisonment but, the learned Fast Track Judge has imposed simple imprisonment for the life time. Hence, on this ground, he submitted to allow the appeal preferred by the State and to enhance the sentence i.e., from simple imprisonment for the life time to rigorous imprisonment till his life. 12. Hence, on this ground, he submitted to allow the appeal preferred by the State and to enhance the sentence i.e., from simple imprisonment for the life time to rigorous imprisonment till his life. 12. We have perused the appeal memorandum in respect of both the appeals, oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 16, documents produced at Exs.P1 to 19 and we have also considered the oral submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides in respect of both the appeals. 13. So far as the contention of the prosecution that deceased Sanjeevamma made the dying declaration as per Ex.P12 is concerned, let us examine the prosecution materials in order to ascertain whether the materials placed by the prosecution inspires confidence in the mind of the Court that really she made such a dying declaration. So far as the dying declaration is concerned, we are conscious of the legal position that if it is satisfactorily established before the Court, it can be sole basis for conviction. But, as the declarant making a dying declaration is not making it on oath and as the person making the dying declaration is not subjected to cross-examination, the Court has to consider these aspects carefully and cautiously before coming to the conclusion whether the dying declaration has been made or not. We have perused the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this regard. 14. The document Ex.P12 is the dying declaration relied upon by the prosecution. A perusal of the contents of this document, which is stated to be made by Sanjeevamma, wife of late Hanumanthaiah; wherein the contents goes to show that she is residing in the address and she is having illicit connection/relationship with the carpenter of her village by name ‘Badagi Rangappa’. On that day, there was a mutton curry prepared in the house and when her relative Narasimhappa and others were having the meals, Badgi Rangappa came and he also asked Sanjeevamma to give the mutton curry and as it was not provided on the ground that the mutton curry was not at all kept for him, at about 8.00 p.m., on 29.10.2010, he took kerosene, poured on her from the head to feet and lit fire to her and she sustained burn injuries to her body. She was taken to Pavagada Government Hospital for the purpose of treatment. She was taken to Pavagada Government Hospital for the purpose of treatment. It is also mentioned in the said document that the accused is not having illicit connection/relationship with her whom she was treating as her husband, made an attempt to commit her murder by pouring kerosene and litting fire to her. Narasamma, the elder sister-in-law of deceased Sanjeevamma has seen the incident personally and she extinguished the fire. She gave the statement in the presence of the doctor before the Police in Pavagada Government Hospital. She is illiterate and she gave her statement at about 9.30 p.m. in the hospital and she put her left thumb impression. Hence, she requested to take legal action against the accused person. So, this statement of P.W.1 itself was treated as first information and case also came to be registered firstly for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. 15. P.W.13 one Gangadharaaiah deposed in his evidence in the examination-in-chief that on 29.10.2010, he was working as a S.H.O. in the Police Station. At about 9.15 p.m., he received information about the burnt case, immediately he went to Pavagada Government Hospital and enquired with the injured Sanjeevamma and recorded her statement. Dr. Nagabushan gave the information and along with the doctor, he went and recorded her statement. Himself and one Shivashankarappa went to the hospital while recording the statement of Sanjeevamma. In her statement, she has stated that after demise of her husband, she was having illicit connection/relationship with the accused and on the date of the incident, her relative Narasimhappa and her elder sister Lakshmamma came to the house and she prepared mutton curry for them. At that time, the accused came to the house and questioned her without giving the mutton curry to him she has provided to those persons, took up quarrel with her and brought kerosene oil, poured on her and lit fire. When he has to record the statement, as he was the S.H.O., another Police recorded the same. Though obtained the thumb impression of Sanjeevamma, the doctor also signed to the said statement. After recording the said statement, she went to the Police Station and registered F.I.R. at about 9.50 p.m. He has identified the said statement as Ex.P12, his signature as Ex.P12(a) and F.I.R. at Ex.P13. Though obtained the thumb impression of Sanjeevamma, the doctor also signed to the said statement. After recording the said statement, she went to the Police Station and registered F.I.R. at about 9.50 p.m. He has identified the said statement as Ex.P12, his signature as Ex.P12(a) and F.I.R. at Ex.P13. In the cross-examination, he deposed that from the hospital the residence of the Taluka Magistrate was at certain distance nearly about 400 mtrs. He has not ascertained whether the Taluka Magistrate was there or not. He has not ascertained with the doctor as to whether she is in a fit condition to give the statement. Further deposed that the doctor told orally she is capable to give the statement. But, there is no document. Even, they have permission from the concerned doctor orally to record the dying declaration of the injured. There is no certification either at the beginning or at the end of the said dying declaration to the effect that the injured was in fit condition to give such a statement. He denied the suggestion that the injured was not in a position to give the statement, and she was not having consciousness. He recorded her statement with the help of one Shivashankarappa. He told Shivashankarappa whatever told by the injured, same is reduced into writing. He denied the suggestion that the injured was not in a position to put her thumb impression also and the thumb impression on Ex.P12 is not the thumb impression of Sanjeevamma. Witness admitted that he has not put his signature identifying the thumb impression of Sanjeevamma, so also, the doctor has also not put the signature identifying the thumb impression as that of Sanjeevamma. Shivashankarappa also not put his signature stating that she gave the statement in his presence. Even he has not seen Dr. Nagabushan put the signature, confirming the statement of Sanjeevamma. He denied the suggestion that they have created the statement of Sanjeevamma. 16. P.W.16Dr. Nagabushan is the another witness in connection with Ex.P12. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 29.10.2010 he attended his duty in Pavagada Government Hospital. At 9.15 p.m., one Sanjeevamma, who sustained burn injuries was brought to the hospital and she was in a position to speak. She told that the Police is to be called. There were burnt clothes on her body. There were burnt injuries on her face, hands and other parts. At 9.15 p.m., one Sanjeevamma, who sustained burn injuries was brought to the hospital and she was in a position to speak. She told that the Police is to be called. There were burnt clothes on her body. There were burnt injuries on her face, hands and other parts. She told that in her house her husband with whom she is having illicit connection/relationship, poured kerosene on her body and lit fire to her. He gave her first aid treatment, I.V. fluids, so also injection and for better treatment she was referred to Tumkur Government Hospital. When he was in the hospital, upto 3.30 p.m. he came to know that Sanjeevamma expired. Before her demise, Police have recorded her statement. Police came to the hospital within 15 minutes after the information. While giving statement before the Police, she told that her husband with whom she is having illicit connection/relationship took up quarrel in connection with meals, he poured kerosene and lit fire. When she gave statement, he was also present and was also put his signature to the said statement. He identified his signature as per Ex.P12(b). In the cross-examination, he deposed that he has not ascertained whether the fire was lit to her by somebody or she herself lit fire. He sent a memo to the Police informing about the incident. The Police came to the hospital at about 9.30 p.m. There is a distance of half furlong from the hospital to the Police Station. He admitted the suggestion that the Taluka Executive Magistrate’s residence is nearer to the Police Station. But, he has not issued memo to the Taluka Executive Magistrate. Even he has not informed to the Judicial Magistrate, whose residence is also at a distance of half furlong. He has not addressed any letter to the Judicial Magistrate also. The P.S.I. and the Head Constable came to the Police Station. Before recording the statement, Police have not at all ascertained as to whether she is in a position to give statement or not in their hospital and in the records, there is no reference of confirmation that she was in a fit condition to give her statement. The statement was written by the Head Constable as narrated by the P.S.I. He has mentioned the husband’s name of Sanjeevamma. The statement was written by the Head Constable as narrated by the P.S.I. He has mentioned the husband’s name of Sanjeevamma. There is no certification that from the stage of starting of the statement till the end of recording of the same, she was conscious and she was in a fit condition. He denied the suggestion that the thumb impression was not that of Sanjeevamma. She sustained 95% burn injuries. He denied the suggestion that when she was brought to the hospital, she was not having consciousness. 17. Looking to the oral evidence of aforesaid witnesses i.e., P.Ws.13 and 16, it is clear that before recording the statement of Sanjeevamma, the Police have not at all ascertained by the doctor whether she was in a fit condition to give such a statement. Even the witnesses have admitted that there is no certification about her mental condition about the fitness to give such a statement either in the beginning of the dying declaration or at the end portion of the dying declaration. Looking to these materials and also the principle enunciated in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, which are referred above, we are of the clear opinion that the dying declarationEx.P12 will not inspire the confidence in the mind of the Court that really it was given by deceased Sanjeevamma. The materials goes to show that the head constable went to the hospital with one Shivashankarappa to record the dying declaration. There is no reference that the P.S.I. also accompanied them. It is the evidence of the Police that Shivashankarappa recorded the statement in the presence of P.W.13Gangadharaiah, Head Constable. Said Shivashankarappa is neither cited as a charge-sheet witness nor he has been examined before the Court. The prosecution evidence goes to show that the P.S.I. went to the hospital along with the Head Constable and as narrated by the P.S.I., the Head Constable recorded the dying declaration is the another version on the side of the prosecution. Therefore, looking to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no consistency as to who really recorded the statement of deceased Sanjeevamma. Therefore, considering these materials placed on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the document Ex.P12 Dying declaration with cogent and satisfactory material. Therefore, looking to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is no consistency as to who really recorded the statement of deceased Sanjeevamma. Therefore, considering these materials placed on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the document Ex.P12 Dying declaration with cogent and satisfactory material. This aspect is not properly appreciated by the learned Fast Track Court Judge and it has been wrongly held by the Court below that the prosecution proved the dying declaration. 18. When we disbelieved the case of the prosecution, so far as the dying declaration is concerned, now the next question before the Court is whether the prosecution is able to make out its case with the help of materials produced on record. It is the prosecution case that the accused was staying with deceased Sanjeevamma. She lost her husband, after that she started to live with the accused person, having illicit connection/relationship with him. In this connection, the prosecution examined P.W.6Nagesh, the son of deceased Sanjeevamma. 19. P.W.6Nagesh, in his evidence in examination-in-chief, deposed that he studied II year P.U.C. From his village Gundalahalli, college is at the distance of about 4 kms. When his mother expired, at that time he was studying in II Year P.U.C. Everyday he used to go to the college and coming back. Accused used to come to his house often and used to stay in their house itself. From the period of his father expired, the accused was staying in their house. He was not talking with the accused and in that connection he has not talked with his mother. He says that his mother and the accused having the relationship like husband and wife. On 29.10.2010 he was informed by Narasamma through telephone that the accused person poured kerosene and lit fire to his mother. When he received the phone message, it was 10.00 p.m. and he was also informed that his mother was shifted to Pavagada Government Hospital. As there was no bus facility during the night, in the morning he came to Pavagada from Hindupura at about 9.00 a.m. and he has seen the postmortem examination conducted over the dead body of his mother. Except the face, the entire body of his mother was burnt. He was also informed at about 3.00 a.m. that his mother expired. His senior uncle Narasimhaiah was present in the hospital. Except the face, the entire body of his mother was burnt. He was also informed at about 3.00 a.m. that his mother expired. His senior uncle Narasimhaiah was present in the hospital. He deposed in his cross-examination that whenever the accused used to come to the house in a drunken state, he was picking up quarrel. There was an acquaintance between his mother and the accused person. When they were together, going to Hatti to do coolie work he was under the impression that they were going to attend the work. He has informed the Police as well as in the hospital that the accused used to stay in the house along with his mother. When he gave the statement before the Police, he has stated that they were staying as husband and wife. No doubt he has admitted in the cross-examination that his mother was also addicted to drinking of alcohol whenever the accused used to bring liquor to the house. He denied the suggestion that she herself poured kerosene on her and committed suicide. Denied the suggestion that accordingly he gave the statement before the Police. He denied the further suggestion that there is no sort of relationship between his mother and the accused. 20. We have also perused the oral evidence of P.W.7Sumithramma. She also deposed in her evidence in the examination-in-chief that Sanjeevamma and the accused were living together as husband and wife. After the demise of the husband of Sajeevamma, the accused was staying with Sanjeevamma. She further deposed that on the date of the incident at 8.00 p.m., she has seen the accused going to the house of Sanjeevamma and it was 29.10.2010. Looking to the cross-examination of this witness, there is no specific suggestion that she is not at all seen the accused person going to the house of Sanjeevamma at 8.00 p.m. on 29.10.2010. Therefore, the evidence of this P.W.7Sumithramma with regard to the said factum remains unchallenged. 21. We have also perused the evidence of other prosecution witness P.W.1Narasamma, wherein she has stated that about one year back at 8.30 p.m. she was in her house. In the house of Sajeevamma, Sanjeevamma and the accused were present. ‘Galata’ was going on in the said house. The accused was insisting deceased Sanjeevamma to give the widower pension to him and as she did not agree, there used to be quarrel. In the house of Sajeevamma, Sanjeevamma and the accused were present. ‘Galata’ was going on in the said house. The accused was insisting deceased Sanjeevamma to give the widower pension to him and as she did not agree, there used to be quarrel. She kept mum thinking that always there were quarrel with each other. At about 8.30 p.m., the accused poured kerosene and lit fire to Sanjeevamma. When she went to the said place, Sanjeevamma already sustained burns. When she loudly screamed, the accused ran away from the said place. In the cross-examination by the defence, it was elicited that the accused and Sanjeevamma were consuming liquor ‘brandy’. 22. Now, coming to the evidence of P.W.2Narasimhappa, who also deposed in his evidence in the examination-in-chief that about one year back, Sanjeevamma expired. He went to keep watch on Bengal gram crop. When the ambulance came near the house, people gathered and he came to know that Sanjeevamma was taken in the ambulance. He also went. When she was taken to the hospital, she was alive. She was admitted in Pavagada Government Hospital. Sanjeevamma informed the Police and the Police have recorded her statement. 23. Looking to aforesaid evidence on the side of the prosecution, the prosecution is able to establish the fact that the accused person was staying in the house of Sanjeevamma and even on the date of the incident also he was in the house of deceased Sanjeevamma. It has come on record that except Sanjeevamma and the accused person, no other person was staying in the house. Particularly, on the date of the incident even the son of Sanjeevamma was also not in station. He was at Hindupura, who is said to have come on the next day in the early morning. When it is established by the prosecution that during the night on 29.10.2010, only accused and deceased Sanjeevamma were staying and she sustained burn injuries and when it is the case of the prosecution that it is the accused person, who poured kerosene and lit fire to her, it is for the accused person to explain the circumstances under which death has taken place. In this connection, we are referring to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this connection, we are referring to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. As per the said Section, the burden is on the accused person to explain because the facts and circumstances leading to the incident are exclusively within the knowledge of the accused. 24. In this connection, we are also relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein There Lordships held that in such cases, the burden cannot be on the prosecution just like other cases. It is for the person in the said house to explain. The decision reported in 2006(10) Supreme Court Cases 681 rendered in the case of Trimuhk Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra. Para Nos.21 and 22 of the said decision are relevant and they reads as under: “21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. 22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstances which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of H.P. it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with “khukhri” and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of T.N. v. Rajendran the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.” Therefore, even according to the principle enunciated by Their Lordships in the aforesaid decision also, the burden is also on the accused person to explain the said circumstances, but the accused person has not at all explained the circumstances under which the incident has taken place. 25. We have also referred to 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the accused person. Looking to his answer to question No.3, firstly, he said as ‘false’ and then he stated that he was not in the village. In answer to question No.23, he has stated that he was not at all in the village, then he further stated that himself is different and she is different, there is no sort of relationship. Therefore, looking to his answer to both these questions in the 313 statement claiming that he was not at all present in the village and then again Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act comes into play and in that connection also we are relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1021 in the case of State of Haryana v. Sher Singh and others. The relevant paragraph in the said Judgment is para No.4, which reads as under: “When an accused pleads alibi, the burden is on him to prove it under Section 103 of the Evidence Act which provides: “103. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Illustrations: (1) A prosecutes B for theft and wishes the court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission. B wishes the court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.” In this case defence did not adduce any evidence to prove the alibi. Illustrations: (1) A prosecutes B for theft and wishes the court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission. B wishes the court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.” In this case defence did not adduce any evidence to prove the alibi. On the contrary 21st the evidence of P.W.11, Lila, is that on October, 1973, all the accused were produced by Lalji, the brother of the wife of respondent, Sher Singh in village Nand Karan Majra around 8 a.m., when they were arrested. This was in presence of P.W.11, and several others. Police had been there the witness says, from October 17 to 20, 1973. This evidence of P.W.11 remains un-rebutted. The plea of the respondents that they had been elsewhere at the time of the occurrence and returned to the place of occurrence by themselves on October 17, when they were arrested by police, is untrue.” Therefore, looking to these principle also, it is for the accused person and not for the prosecution to establish the fact that he was not at all in the village. Now, we refer to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.14Muniraju S., P.S.I., where he has stated in his evidence that the accused gave the voluntary statement and it is as per Ex.P17. The accused has also put his signature. He also put his signature on Ex.P17. The signature of the accused is also identified and his voluntary statement. At the instance of the accused person, he led the Police and the panch-witnesses to the house and produced articles M.Os.1 to 7. Out of the said articles, he has produced M.O.4, which he has said to have worn at the time of the incident. We perused the F.S.L. reportEx.P18. Totally, 7 articles were sent for examination to the laboratory as mentioned at Sl. Nos.1 to 7. The 3rd item is one sealed cloth packet said to have contained one shirt. Looking to the observations made by the F.S.L. insofar as the said articles are concerned, as for as article No.3, which is mentioned in the report, cloth packet contained one half sleeves cream colour checks designed shirt, dirty stained all over the shirt. Five plastic buttons and on pocket present. No burnt marks found on the shirt. Smell of kerosene present. Five plastic buttons and on pocket present. No burnt marks found on the shirt. Smell of kerosene present. So, this presence of kerosene, which was noticed by the laboratory in the shirt of the accused person, which shirt was recovered at the instance and as per the voluntary statement of the accused person about which the prosecution has placed the satisfactory material. This also goes to falsify the contention of the accused that he was not in the village during that night. This clearly goes to show that the accused has taken the false defence in his 313 statement that he was not at all in the village during that night. Therefore, taking such false contention before the Court is also one of the material aspect regarding the conduct of the accused to be appreciated by the Court while appreciating the materials so also, the defence of the accused. Looking to these materials, it also further supports the contention of the prosecution about involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. These aspects were properly considered by the learned Fast Track Court Judge and has rightly held about these materials that the accused person is guilty for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and there are no valid and justified grounds to interfere in the said impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, as there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the accused, we dismiss the appeal of the accused, confirming the Judgment and Order with modification regarding the sentence aspect is concerned. So far as the appeal preferred by the State is concerned, as the prosecution proved its case with satisfactory material that it is the accused, who poured kerosene and lit fire to deceased Sanjeevamma in the house. Looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, we are of the opinion that the learned Fast Track Court Judge ought to imposed rigorous imprisonment for life instead of simple imprisonment for the life time. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State is allowed and the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. We modify the impugned Judgment and Order of the learned Fast Track Court Judge that in place of ‘simple imprisonment’, it is to be made as ‘rigorous imprisonment’. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State is allowed and the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. We modify the impugned Judgment and Order of the learned Fast Track Court Judge that in place of ‘simple imprisonment’, it is to be made as ‘rigorous imprisonment’. We also modify the ‘imprisonment for the life time’ as ‘imprisonment for life’ only.