JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. 1. Appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction in Sessions Trial No. 481/2015, awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur by which he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution against the appellant in short is as under. (i) Deceased Anita @ Pinky was married with the appellant on 18-5-2006. After marriage, appellant along with his wife and daughter Nikisha @ Bittu were residing in Nagpur in a rented premises. Deceased Anita was serving at Kothari Jewellers, Itwari, Nagpur. Appellant was always doubting the character of deceased and giving mental and physical trouble to her. Deceased was informing to her sister about the cruelty by appellant. Her sister and relatives given understanding to the appellant and deceased. Sister of deceased, namely, Meena and her husband gave understanding to the appellant for several times but he was not listening. (ii) Due to constant harassment by appellant, his wife (deceased Anita) lodged report at Police Station, Lakadganj in the month of May, 2013. Thereafter matter was compromised between deceased and appellant and they were residing together. Even after compromise between the husband and wife, appellant continued his harassment to his deceased wife. He was threatening to kill her. He was assaulting her. On 23-8-2015, deceased Anita informed to her sister Meena that her husband was asking for withdrawal of amount from bank at Ramtek which was kept in Fixed Deposit. At that time, Meena told deceased not to accompany with appellant. (iii) 23 days before the incident, appellant came to Nagpur. He was also residing at Pali. On the next day, appellant along with his daughter Nikisha and deceased wife went to market. Thereafter on the next day, appellant told his wife that they will go to Pali. Appellant along with his deceased wife and daughter Nikisha went to Mansar by ST bus. They alighted at Mansar. Appellant phoned to his brother Vikky. Vikky brought one Activa vehicle. Thereafter they went to petrol pump. Petrol was filled in Activa vehicle. Thereafter they went to Pali at the parents house of appellant. (iv) Appellant asked his wife whether she was coming to Parsheoni. Deceased declined to go to Parsheoni. Thereafter he forcibly took his wife and daughter to the field at Pali. Vikky brought one Activa vehicle. Thereafter they went to petrol pump. Petrol was filled in Activa vehicle. Thereafter they went to Pali at the parents house of appellant. (iv) Appellant asked his wife whether she was coming to Parsheoni. Deceased declined to go to Parsheoni. Thereafter he forcibly took his wife and daughter to the field at Pali. He stopped vehicle in the field. They sat under custard tree. They ate puffed rice and biscuit. Appellant asked deceased whether she comes for drinking water to which deceased declined. Appellant went towards nullah, he did not return. Deceased and daughter Nikisha went to see him. They saw appellant while drawing petrol from Activa. (v) Deceased asked why he was drawing petrol. Appellant caught hold hairs of deceased and fell down to her and beat severely. Thereafter he ran towards his daughter Nikisha. Deceased caught hold the legs of appellant and told Nikisha @ Bittu saying that “HINDI” (Bittu you run). Nikisha ran away and hidden herself behind one tree. She was not visible to appellant. Appellant assaulted deceased severely, poured petrol from the plastic container and set deceased ablaze by match stick. Appellant also sustained burn to his legs. He extinguished the said fire. Thereafter he ran away from the spot. Nikisha went running in the jungle (forest). Her uncle Ramesh met her. He seated her on the vehicle of one person. She was reached to the house of Vikky. (vi) P.W. 1 Meena Dhore, sister of deceased came to know about the incident. Thereafter she went to Paliumri at the spot of incident and with one man and daughter of deceased, namely, Nikisha. There was a crowd of people. Dead body of her sister Anita was lying in nullah in burn condition. Nikisha told her that her father poured petrol on the person of her mother and set her on fire. She also told that her father tried to burn her but she fled away. Thereafter she went to Police Station, Parsheoni and lodged report, Exhibit 14. Crime was registered vide printed First Information Report, Exhibit 15. (vii) PSI Raut investigated the crime. She also told that her father tried to burn her but she fled away. Thereafter she went to Police Station, Parsheoni and lodged report, Exhibit 14. Crime was registered vide printed First Information Report, Exhibit 15. (vii) PSI Raut investigated the crime. He arrested the accused on the same day at about 3.40 p.m., prepared spot panchanama, sent dead body for postmortem, recorded statements of witnesses and after complete investigation, filed chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parsheoni who in turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions at Nagpur. (viii) Charge was framed at Exhibit 3. Same was readover and explained to the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence appears to be of total denial. Learned trial Court examined in all 11 witnesses. (ix) Statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has denied material incriminating evidence against him. After hearing the prosecution and defence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant as stated above. 3. Heard learned counsel Shri R. P. Dhale for the appellant. He has submitted that P.W. 4, child witness was the only eye witness of the incident. Her evidence is not corroborated by any other evidence. There is material contradiction in her evidence and statement recorded by Child Welfare Committee. She has stated before the Court that she hidden herself behind one tree but spot panchanama does not show that there was any tree near the spot of incident. Her evidence is not reliable. There is no evidence to show that appellant burnt his wife by pouring petrol on her person. Learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant, hence, prayed to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri T. A. Mirza for the State/respondent. He has pointed out evidence on record and submitted that there is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 4 to disbelieve her evidence. She was the witness of the incident. Appellant not only burnt his wife but he tried to burn/kill his daughter Nikisha (P.W. 4) also. Her evidence is trustworthy and reliable. Learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. She was the witness of the incident. Appellant not only burnt his wife but he tried to burn/kill his daughter Nikisha (P.W. 4) also. Her evidence is trustworthy and reliable. Learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. From the perusal of evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7, it clearly shows that before the incident, appellant was beating and ill-treating deceased. He was suspecting the character of deceased and on that count, he was ill-treating his wife. Before the incident, deceased lodged the report in Police Station, Lakadganj on 10-5-2013. P.W. 5 API Shri Vikrant Sadne has stated in his evidence that deceased Anita came to police station and lodged report against her husband stating that he used to beat her by consuming liquor. Non cognizable offence was registered against appellant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code by N.C. No. 551/13 (Exhibit 30). 6. Evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 4, P.W. 7 and P.W. 5 API Sadne shows the conduct of appellant before the incident. Evidence of these witnesses clearly shows that appellant was suspecting the character of his wife and he was always beating and ill-treating her. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, appellant threatened to kill deceased. 7. As per the evidence of P.W. 4, appellant taken his wife and daughter P.W. 4 to Pali Umri. They went by bus to Mansar. He called his brother Vikky. Vikky came on Activa. Thereafter appellant along with his wife and daughter went to petrol pump, filled petrol and thereafter went to house. After sometime, they went to their field. Appellant had purchased biscuit and puffed rice. They sat below custard tree and ate puffed rice and biscuit. 8. Appellant went toward nullah for drinking water. He did not return, therefore, deceased and P.W. 4 went to see him. Appellant was seen while drawing petrol from Activa in a plastic container. Deceased asked him why he was drawing petrol. Appellant caught hold hairs of deceased and fell down her and beat her severely. Thereafter he rushed towards P.W. 4, that time, deceased caught hold the legs of appellant and told P.W. 4 saying that “HINDI” (Bittu you run). 9. P.W. 4 hidden herself behind one tree. She saw appellant while beating to her mother. Appellant severely beat her mother. Appellant caught hold hairs of deceased and fell down her and beat her severely. Thereafter he rushed towards P.W. 4, that time, deceased caught hold the legs of appellant and told P.W. 4 saying that “HINDI” (Bittu you run). 9. P.W. 4 hidden herself behind one tree. She saw appellant while beating to her mother. Appellant severely beat her mother. He poured petrol from plastic container upon her mother and set her ablaze by match stick. Appellant's leg was also started burning. He extinguished said fire. Thereafter he ran away. 10. P.W. 4 has stated that she came out from behind tree and went running in jungle (forest). Her uncle Ramesh met her. He sat her on the vehicle of one person. She went to the house of Vikky Dada. After 23 days, her statement was recorded by police. 11. Evidence of P.W. 4 is not shattered in her cross-examination. Some contradictions are brought on record in the statement recorded by Child Welfare Committee on 11-9-2015. It is pertinent to note that on 28-8-2015, statement of P.W. 4 was recorded by police. From the perusal of statement dated 28-8-2015 not a single omission and contradiction appears in the evidence of P.W. 4. During her cross-examination, her statement recorded by police was not pointed out to her. The statement recorded by police was earlier in time i.e. dated 28-8-2015 whereas the statement recorded by Child Welfare Committee is dated 11-9-2015. 12. From reading of whole statement dated 11-9-2015, it appears that there is no material contradiction or omission in respect of the incident stated by P.W. 4. The contradiction is in respect of one person who came to the spot of incident and appellant threatened him. But there is no material contradiction or omission in respect of the incident that appellant poured petrol on the person of deceased and set her on fire. Nothing is brought on record in the evidence of P.W. 4 to show that her evidence is not reliable. P.W. 4 was aged about 89 years at the time of incident. She was having understanding. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that she has stated in her evidence that she hidden herself behind one tree. But spot panchanama does not show that there was any tree. P.W. 4 was aged about 89 years at the time of incident. She was having understanding. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that she has stated in her evidence that she hidden herself behind one tree. But spot panchanama does not show that there was any tree. This submission is not helpful to the appellant because as per the map prepared by Revenue Inspector, Exhibit 66, it clearly shows that there was a nullah and forest near to the spot of incident. Each and everything cannot be expected to be written in the spot panchanama. The incident took place in the field near the forest, therefore, existence of tree cannot be denied. 14. Evidence of P.W. 4 is well corroborated by other evidence. As per her evidence, appellant taken deceased and P.W. 4 on Activa to the spot of incident. Activa was found on the spot of incident at the time of spot panchanama. One plastic container and plastic tube was also found on the spot of incident. This situation of the spot at the time of spot panchanama corroborates the version of P.W. 4. Moreover, P.W. 4 has stated in her evidence that appellant tried to kill her. Appellant tried to chase her but her mother caught hold the leg of appellant and told P.W. 4 to run away. This is nothing but natural conduct of mother. 15. Evidence of P.W. 4 is well corroborated by the injury certificate of appellant. Appellant was arrested on the day of incident itself at about 3.40 p.m. He was produced before the Medical Officer of Rural Hospital, Parsheoni. Medical Officer examined him and found injuries. 16. P.W. 8 Dr. Premanand Awari has stated in his evidence that on 25-8-2015, he examined appellant Vilas Govidrao Pradhan and found following injuries : (1) burn injury on right leg below elbow skin separated from leg (68 %). (2) Burn injury on left forearm and hand skin separated from backside (46%). (3) Burn injury on left side of waist and anterior side approximately 15x 15 cm area (24%). He has stated that age of injuries was 5 to 6 hours. He was at about 3.50 p.m. Approximately, incident took place in between 1011 a.m. 17. Evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 show that appellant was always beating deceased and suspecting her character. He has stated that age of injuries was 5 to 6 hours. He was at about 3.50 p.m. Approximately, incident took place in between 1011 a.m. 17. Evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 show that appellant was always beating deceased and suspecting her character. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 4 that he made a preplan and taken deceased and daughter to Pali. He taken them to his field. He poured petrol on the person his wife and set her on fire. He also tried to kill P.W. 4, his daughter, but deceased caught hold his leg and, therefore, P.W. 4 would run away. Therefore, intention of appellant to kill deceased is very clear. 18. Evidence of P.W. 4 is well corroborated by the spot panchanama. Burn injuries sustained by appellant. C.A. report, Exhibit 39 shows that results of tests for the detection of residues petroleum hydrocarbons on exhibit nos. (8), (10) and (11) are positive. Exhibit (8), (10) and (11) i.e. rubber pipe, orange coloured liquid in a plastic can and full shirt were seized from the spot of incident. Deceased was completely burn. There was no any clothes on the dead body. Postmortem report, Exhibit 27 admitted by defence clearly show that deceased had 95% burn. Therefore, there is no dispute about the death of deceased by burn injuries. Evidence adduced by prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was always suspecting the character of his wife. He was always beating her. Deceased has lodged the report earlier to the incident. The matter was compromised between them. Even thereafter, appellant continued beating and ill-treating deceased. At the time of incident, appellant poured petrol on the person of deceased and set her on fire. Impugned judgment is perfectly legal and correct. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment, hence, we find no merit in the appeal. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ii) R & P be sent back to the trial Court. (iii) Fee payable to the learned Counsel appointed for appellant is quantified as rupees five thousand.