JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. By this appeal, under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”), the appellant – accused has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirjapur, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.69 of 2009, whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). For the offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC, the trial court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was also sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offences punishable under sections 4 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the trial is that the accused burnt the deceased complainant Sapnaben Rahimbhai on 04.02.2009 at about 11:45 at night by pouring kerosene on her, when she refused to go to hotel for prostitution as told by the accused. 3. The deceased complainant-Sapnaben was residing at Block-94, Room No.1127, at Gota Housing Ganesh Chawk Block, Ahmedabad. In her complaint before the Head Constable, B.J. Solanki, Sarkhej Police Station, she has stated that she was residing with accused Ashok since last two months and was doing labour work. She has stated that the accused Ashok had brought her from her parent’s house on assurance given to her for providing her job and hence, the accused-Ashok, his wife Puja as well as Harshad were staying together and accused-Ashok used to take work of prostitution from her. It is also stated by her that on 04.02.2009 in the night at about 11:45, the accused told her to go to a Hotel for prostitution. At that time when she refused, he had beaten her and poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. It is submitted by her that accused-Ashok as well as Puja both ran away when she was burning and in such condition she came out of the block and started shouting for help. At that time when she refused, he had beaten her and poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. It is submitted by her that accused-Ashok as well as Puja both ran away when she was burning and in such condition she came out of the block and started shouting for help. At that time number of people had gathered who covered her with a quilt, and thereafter she was rushed to the hospital in an 108 ambulance for treatment. She was asserted that she was in complete consciousness during her treatment. A complaint to that effect came to be lodged. 4. Upon registering the offences, the Investigating Officer has carried out the investigation and after following the due procedure of law, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. Since the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Dist. Ahmedabad. A charge Exh2 was framed against the accused-appellant and the plea of the accused-appellant was recorded under the provision of section 228(2) of the Code. The accused – appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. At the time of trial, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses as well as produced 30 documentary evidence. The defence has examined 2 witnesses. 6. At the end and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and defence, the trial court convicted the accused of all the charges levelled against the accused. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial court, the appellant accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Mihir Pathak appearing on behalf of the accused has submitted that the trial court has erred in convicting the accused under section 302 of the IPC, as the evidence recorded would suggest that the accused has committed offence due to grave and sudden provocation and hence, he is entitled to get benefit of Exception4 of section 300 of the IPC and hence, his sentence should be accordingly reduced. 8. 8. He has submitted that there is no direct evidence available against the present accused and on the contrary it is revealed that the accused had brought the deceased from Calcutta for providing work and the allegation made by the complainant against the accused is that the accused had compelled her to do such immoral act. It is also submitted that the Trial court has failed in appreciating the evidence in its true perspective, and hence the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Mihir Pathak has also submitted that in fact name of the accused is Javed Shaikh and in the dying declarations made by the complainant, she has named one Ashok, who is not the present appellant or accused. Thus, he has submitted that present case is of mistaken identity and hence, the appellant is wrongly implicated in the offence. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Surain Singh vs. The State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 2017 S.C. 1904, for the proposition of law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of Exception4 of section 300 of the IPC since he has committed the crime without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel. He has also urged that the conviction of the accused may be converted to section 304II of IPC since the accused is entitled to the benefit of grave and sudden provocation. 10. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi appearing for the respondent – State has stated that there is ample evidence on record suggesting involvement of the accused and the trial court, after a detailed examination of such evidence, has rightly convicted the accused for the offence charged against him. He has submitted that the dying declarations of the deceased complainant are more than enough to prove the offence against the accused. He has submitted that there is no lapse in the investigation and after proper identification of the accused, he was arrested for the offence and the same is proved before the trial court. 11. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 12. The substratum of the prosecution case are the dying declarations made by the deceased complainant. 11. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 12. The substratum of the prosecution case are the dying declarations made by the deceased complainant. In her dying declaration at Exh.18, she has asserted that “one Ashok compelled her to do the immoral act and asked her to go to a hotel for doing sex and on being denied by her, Ashok quarreled with her and poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze”. She has specifically named the person who burnt her was Ashok. 13. PW-4, Laxmanbhai Keshavlal Parghi, the Executive Magistrate is examined at Exh.16. He has deposed that on 05.02.2009 at about 3:15, he received a dying declaration memo from Sarkhej Police Station, in which he has signed. Accordingly, he went to the Burns Ward of Civil Hospital in the Government vehicle, where he met the patient, who was admitted in the Burns Ward, and she was fully conscious. He has stated that he accordingly asked her name and she herself informed “Sapnaben”. After assuring that the patient is fully conscious and is able to give an answer to the questions, he had recorded the dying declaration at Exh.18. 14. He has submitted that before recording the dying declaration, he had asked her relatives as well as the Police Officer to go outside. The dying declaration was recorded from 3:40 in the night till 4:00 in the morning. The doctor has specified that the dying declaration recorded by him does not suffer from any infirmity. He has also stated that he has to put the note that the patient knows the Gujarati language and he has asked the questions in Hindi language and she has answered accordingly, and thereafter he signed the note and endorsed the date. In the cross-examination of aforesaid witness, nothing adverse is elicited and hence, the dying declaration is proved to be genuine and authentic. 15. PW-10, Dr. Chinmay C. Digankar, who is examined at Exh.29. He has deposed in his deposition that on 05.02.2009, while he was serving in the Civil Hospital as Medical Officer at that time at about 1:30 a.m., a patient named Sapna was admitted for taking treatment and on inquiry, she has stated that at about 11:45 p.m. on 04.02.2009, Ashok, Harshad and Puja came at her home, at Gota, Ahmedabad City and sprinkled kerosene on her and left her burning at her home. He has certified that the patient Sapanaben is fully conscious. He has also deposed that patient Sapna was brought to the hospital by neighbour Vishnu by calling 108 ambulance and immediately she was admitted in the G1 Ward. He has deposed that the patient had suffered 90% injuries due to burns and she died on the next day i.e. 05.02.2009 at about 1:00 p.m. It is also revealed from his testimony that the deceased has stated that she basically belongs to Calcutta and presently she is staying with Ashok, Puja and Harshad. The Medical Officer has further deposed that the history was informed by the patient Sapnaben and her neighbour Vishnubhai. He has further deposed that he was present when the police and the Executive magistrate had taken the dying declaration. No substantive infirmity or contradiction has been brought out in his cross-examination. The prosecution has proved the authenticity of the dying declaration Exh.18. Thus, the complicity of the accused in pouring kerosene over the deceased complainant is established from the deposition of PW-10, as well as the medical case papers. 16. PW-1, Dr. Manish J. Gandhi, Medical Officer is examined at Exh.5, who has carried out the postmortem of the deceased. He has deposed that the deceased had suffered 23 degree burns. He has further stated that her left leg was having only 1/3 burn injuries, whereas both feet underneath were not injured. 17. PW-16, Dr. Bhavnaben C. Patel has examined at Exh.49, who has given the primary treatment to the deceased. She has stated in her deposition that the case history is recorded by her as narrated by the deceased. She has stated that the deceased was burnt by Ashok by pouring kerosene on her in his house, where she was staying. She has stated that the deceased was brought at 00.50 hours by Gurubhai, Hirenbhai, Kanubhai, Acharayabhai etc to the hospital. Accordingly after providing the EPR to the patient, she informed the constable on duty having Buckle No.5473. This witness has admitted that the medical case papers, Exh.30 bears her signature. The medical case papers specify the history given by the deceased implicates the accused. Her examination-in-chief remains intact after her cross-examination. Hence, the complicity of the accused in the offence stands established through her deposition. 18. This witness has admitted that the medical case papers, Exh.30 bears her signature. The medical case papers specify the history given by the deceased implicates the accused. Her examination-in-chief remains intact after her cross-examination. Hence, the complicity of the accused in the offence stands established through her deposition. 18. PW-14, Police Constable Jivabhai Laxamanbhai is examined at Exh.41 who has deposed that in the early morning at 1:20, a women constable Buckle No.5473 gave a vardhi on telephone, and accordingly he made a note it. He had also made an endorsement of doing the needful by Head Constable Pravinbhai Buckle No.969. 19. PW-11, Pravinbhai Jivabhai working as Unarmed Head Constable at Sarkhej Police Station is examined at Exh.30A. He has stated in his deposition that when he was on duty at night, at that time he was telephonically informed by P.S.O. that vardhi has been received from the Civil Hospital, wherein it is stated that a lady named Sapnaben has been burnt by one Ashok by pouring kerosene on her body and she has been admitted in the Burns Ward of the Civil Hospital and on receiving vardhi, he immediately rushed to the Civil Hospital and the dying declaration was thereafter recorded by the Executive Magistrate. He has further submitted that he has recorded the statement of Sapnaben, wherein she has stated that she used to stay with Ashok since two months at Gota Housing, Block No.94 before 05.02.2009. For the purpose of prostitution, she was asked to go to a hotel. On her refusing, he (Ashokbhai) got irritated and thereafter he poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. His testimony does not suffer from any contradiction or omission. 20. PW-12, Vishnubhai Bhikhabhai Panchal, the neighbor of the deceased is examined at Exh.32. In his deposition, he has stated that on hearing cries of a lady, he came out of his block. At that time, she was on 3rd floor and she was running out while she was burning and she came near the chowk and at that time, they all gathered. He has stated that he used to stay on the 2nd floor of Block No.94, Room No.1123. He has submitted that all of them covered her with blanket and quilt and extinguished the fire and called 108 ambulance, in which she was taken to the hospital. He has stated that he used to stay on the 2nd floor of Block No.94, Room No.1123. He has submitted that all of them covered her with blanket and quilt and extinguished the fire and called 108 ambulance, in which she was taken to the hospital. Before she died, she informed that she was burnt by Ashok by pouring kerosene on her. No contradiction and omission are brought in his deposition. 21. PW-19, Investigating Officer, Gunvantray Devramaa Trivedi is examined at Exh.55. In his deposition, he has stated that after he carried out necessary formalities of collecting evidence, he carried out necessary panchnama and sent the articles to FSL for examination. He has deposed that during the investigation, it was revealed that the deceased Sapnaben was staying with Ashok @ Javed Shaikh, Puja and Harshadraj etc. and on the day of the incident, their presence was found there. 22. It is also deposed by him that since Ashok Santosh Patil @ Javed Shaikh was not found from the spot, where he used to sit, he organized a surveillance on the basis of an information that the accused would probably visit his Bengali friend Dabhi, who was staying at the housing board. He planned the vigil on 06.02.2009. When the police got information that Ashok Santosh Patil @ Javed Shaikh would come, he reached to the spot and they detained the accused in the same condition since the panchnama was required to be drawn. Accordingly, he had called the panchas and in their presence, he had asked the name of the accused, whereupon he had informed his name as Javed Abutalib Shaikh @ Ashok Santosh Patil, resident of 24, Pargana, West Bengal, and presently staying at Gota Housing Board. The panchas had carried the panchnama on examining his clothes, they found smell of kerosene was emanating. It was also seen that he has received injury mark on his chest and accordingly, he was sent for treatment to the Medical Officer, Sarkhej along with the yadi. He has submitted that during the investigation, it is found that the accused used to stay at Gota along with the deceased and the accused used to indulge her in prostitution and he has also stated that the accused had brought the deceased from West Bengal for such purpose. He has submitted that during the investigation, it is found that the accused used to stay at Gota along with the deceased and the accused used to indulge her in prostitution and he has also stated that the accused had brought the deceased from West Bengal for such purpose. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that he has not received any medical papers regarding treatment of the deceased Sapnaben. It is also elicited that he has not carried out any identification parade before arresting the accused since he did not find it to be necessary. He has denied the suggestion that he deliberately recorded his name as Ashok @ Javed Abutalib Shaikh. 23. Medical officer, PW-15, Dr. Chandradev A. Chaubey, who has examined the accused, his examined at Exh.46. In his deposition, he has stated that at about 1:30 on 06.02.2009, the accused Javed Abutalib Shaikh @ Ashok Santoshbhai Patil was brought before him for examination with police yadi from Police Station, Sarkhej. He had accordingly examined the accused and found that he was suffering with abrasion marks on his chest. In his injury certificate at Exh.48, it is stated that the accused had suffered with four abrasion marks which seems to be of prior to 24 hours and are made possibly by a sharp object probably by nails. The testimony of the present Medical Officer is corroborated with the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the arrest panchnama mentioning about the accused having injury marks on his chest. 24. Panchnama at Exh.20 reveals that the accused had named himself as Javed Abutalib Shaikh @ Ashokbhai Santoshbhai, when he was confronted by the police near the house of his friend Dabhi. The panchnama also reveals that the accused had suffered abrasion marks on his chest. 25. The scene of offence panchnama at Exh.24 reveals that the Room No.1127, where the incident had occurred was of 10’ x 14’ in size. It also reveals that the presence of kerosene canister and stove. Cap of the can is also found near it, and the can was still filled with 2 liter kerosene. The total capacity of the can is stated as 5 liter. It is also stated that few half burnt matchsticks were found at the scene of offence panchnama also reveals that the plaster of the room had blackened due to fire. 26. The total capacity of the can is stated as 5 liter. It is also stated that few half burnt matchsticks were found at the scene of offence panchnama also reveals that the plaster of the room had blackened due to fire. 26. PW-21, Suresh Sitaram Sharma, who is the owner of the house, is examined at Exh.64. He has identified the accused. He has deposed that House Nos.1127 and 1128 were rented to accused Ashok Patil for Rs.700 and he has deposed that he was from Mumbai. He used to know Ashok since last two or three months as he used to buy articles from his shop. PW21 has identified the accused and he has submitted that on the date of the incident he had gone to Himmatnagar and when he returned at about 11:30 at that time wife of Ashok came at his home and informed him that a girl who was staying with them is burnt and asked him to come with her. At that time, he (PW21) refused to accompany her and said that he would come in morning. He has visited the deceased Sapnaben on the next day in the hospital. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that since there was no written agreement of rent between Ashokbhai(accused) and him and for this lacuna, he had to pay fine as a N.C. Case was registered by Inspector Trivedi for the same. Minor omission is brought out in his testimonies, which will not overall effective credibility of the present case. This witness was recalled after the deposition of Defense Witnesses 1 and 2 for assuring the ownership of the house nos.1127 and 1128. After he was recalled, he has deposed that the original owners of these two blocks were Thakorebhai and Chauhanbhai from whom he had purchased the same vide a sale agreements Exh.76 and 77 executed in favour of him and his wife. It is also elicited that he had not informed the housing board of the aforesaid sale. 27. The defence has examined D.W.1 Jaykumar Lalbhai Shah as a defence witness at Exh.67, who was working as Work Assistant in the Slum Clearance Board. It is also elicited that he had not informed the housing board of the aforesaid sale. 27. The defence has examined D.W.1 Jaykumar Lalbhai Shah as a defence witness at Exh.67, who was working as Work Assistant in the Slum Clearance Board. In his deposition he has deposed that both the Block No.1127 and 1128 were allotted to one Thakore Rankjitsinh Babubhai and Chauhan Ghanshyam Maneklal in the year 1988, who were required to pay the installments for 17 years, and as per their record the same is not paid by them after 1.6.2005. In the cross-examination it is elicited that the blocks do not belong to Sureshbhai Sitaram, PW-21. 28. D.W.2, Prakashbhai Nathuji Chauhan who is working as Senior Clerk in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is examined at Exh.71 for the purpose of ascertaining the owners of the Blocks. He has also deposed in the same lines of D.W.1. 29. We have closely scrutinized the evidence in the present case. We have also examined the documentary evidence as produced by the prosecution. The evidence reveals that there were three dying declarations of the deceased Sapnaben : – (1) at the initial stage which was taken by the Police Constable PW11 Pravinbhai Jivabhai on 05.02.2009, naming the accused (2) the dying declaration taken by the Executive Magistrate at Exh.18 (3) dying declaration before PW-16, Dr. Bhavnaben C. Patel, implicating the accused. The case history recorded by PW10, Dr. Chinmay C. Digankar, also finds the name of the accused. The medical evidence stands proved by the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses. The aforesaid dying declarations naming the accused are found to be consistent and authentic and cannot be discarded for minor variations. The presence and the complicity of the accused in the offence are well established by the prosecution. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses establish them as credible and trustworthy. 30. The residuary question is whether the accused is entitled to the advantage of Exception 4 of section 300 of IPC and the conviction deserves to be converted under section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC. Section 300 reads as under: “SECTION 300 : Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly. Section 300 reads as under: “SECTION 300 : Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly. If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly. If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly. If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Exception 4.Culpable homicide is 'not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation. It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.” The Exception-4 of section 300 of the IPC brings in its ambit the acts arising out of “sudden fight” in the heat of passion without premeditation upon a “sudden quarrel”, and the assailant had not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. In the backdrop of the manner in which the offence has taken place, it is difficult to comprehend the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC in the present case. The expression “fight” presupposes the participation of two parities either of whom is responsible for provocation or assault, or as the explanation suggests it is immaterial which party offers provocation or commits assault. In the present case, the evidence reveals that there was no “fight” between the deceased and the accused but there was verbal altercation between the accused and the deceased. The deceased has simply refused to indulge in immoral act of flesh trade as asked by the accused. On hearing the refusal of going to the hotel for prostitution, the accused burnt her alive by pouring the kerosene. There was no provocation or assault by the deceased. The deceased has simply refused to indulge in immoral act of flesh trade as asked by the accused. On hearing the refusal of going to the hotel for prostitution, the accused burnt her alive by pouring the kerosene. There was no provocation or assault by the deceased. In our considered opinion, a verbal altercation on a plain or assertive refusal to participate in an immoral act will not bring such refusal under the domain of “fight”. The evidence also does not suggest that the case is sheltered by the other ingredients of “having taken under advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner of Exception4 of section 300 of the IPC. He has taken undue advantage of the fact that he was a male, much stronger physically. He had the access to the canister of kerosene and after pouring the same on the deceased, he committed murder in a repulsive and brutal manner. The accused is presumed to know the consequences of his action about pouring kerosene on the deceased and having set her on fire. Hence, the accused cannot be extended the benefit of 4th Exception to section 300 of the IPC. The accused can be said to have committed culpable homicide amounting to murder and is correctly charge sheeted under section 302 of the IPC. 31. The contention raised by the learned advocate for the accused of giving the benefit of grave and sudden provocation to the accused is absolute imperceptive and does not merit acceptance. In the present case, the evidence reveals that the accused has committed the offence when the deceased refused to obey the accused asking her to go to a hotel for prostitution. In our considered opinion, the advantage of grave and sudden provocation, stemming on refusal for doing an immoral act by a victim cannot be conferred on the accused. Under the circumstances, whereupon the victim who refuses to participate in such an immoral act though she may be indulging in prostitution, her refusal at that particular point of time has to be regarded respectful. Though, the victim may be involved in such immoral activities of prostitution, she cannot be treated as a slave or chattel in absolute possession of the accused. The deceased had the right to live with dignity. She had come from Calcutta with a hope of job and had indulged in such activities for sheer survival. Though, the victim may be involved in such immoral activities of prostitution, she cannot be treated as a slave or chattel in absolute possession of the accused. The deceased had the right to live with dignity. She had come from Calcutta with a hope of job and had indulged in such activities for sheer survival. She is the custodian of her self-respect which cannot in any circumstances be in the possession of the accused. The accused was forcing a woman to act against her wishes of indulging in flesh trade, and on her refusal if the accused gets irritated, she cannot be blamed for such behavior, and the accused cannot be granted the benefit of grave and sudden provocation 32. In view of the foregoing observations and afore-noted facts, overall assessment of the evidence reveal that the accused is guilty of the offence committed under section 302 of the IPC. We do not find any infirmity, illegality and perversity in the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused of the offence under section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him for life. The judgment cited by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant-accused in the case of Surain Singh (supra) will not be applied in the facts of the present case as the Supreme Court has observed that “Where on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly. Under these facts and circumstances governing of that case, the Supreme Court had granted him benefits of Exception-4 of section 300 of the IPC. In the present case the preceding observations disclose that the accused brought the canister full of kerosene, poured it on her and thereafter burnt the deceased. The scene of offence punchnama shows presence of half burnt matchsticks which indicates that the deceased was set ablaze by repeated attempts of lighting the matchsticks. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused is not entitled to the benefit of Exception-4 to section 300 of IPC. 33. The scene of offence punchnama shows presence of half burnt matchsticks which indicates that the deceased was set ablaze by repeated attempts of lighting the matchsticks. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused is not entitled to the benefit of Exception-4 to section 300 of IPC. 33. In view of the aforesaid factual position and the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court convicting the accused/appellant as described above are fully concordant with the evidence of the witnesses and no interference therewith is warranted. 34. Accordingly, the judgment impugned is hereby affirmed and the appeal being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.