JUDGMENT V.K. Tahilramani, A.C.J. - Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2014 has been preferred by the appellant Parshuram Nagappa Vitkar - original accused No. 1 against the Judgment & Order dated 1.2.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solpuar in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2013. Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2016 has been preferred by the appellant Lalita Parshuram Vitkar - original accused No. 2 against the very same Judgment & Order. By the said Judgment & Order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC for causing the death of one Chandrakant Kharade. For the said offence, each of the appellants were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Appellant Parshuram who is original accused No. 1 is the husband of appellant Lalita who is original accused No. 2. They were residing at Solapur. Deceased Chandrakant along with his wife Mangala (PW 4), son Haridas (PW 5) and daughterin-law was residing in Solapur. Appellant Parshuram had taken a loan from Chandrakant. Chandrakant was asking Parshuram to return his loan. (b) On 26.10.2012 at about 22.30 Hrs., Chandrakant went to the house of the appellants and demanded his money. Thereupon, the appellants abused Chandrakant. Thereafter, appellant Parshuram poured petrol on the person of Chandrakant and appellant Lalita set Chandrakant on fire. Meanwhile persons gathered at the spot. Chandrakant was taken to the hospital. (c) At about 1.15 a.m., PW 4 Mangala who was the wife of Chandrakant received a phone call that her husband was admitted in the hospital. A police jeep arrived at her house and in the said police jeep, she went to the hospital. When she met her husband, her husband told her that he went to the house of the appellants and when he demanded that the appellant Parshuram should return his money, abuses were hurled at him by the appellants. Thereafter, Parshuram poured petrol on his person and Lalita, the wife of Parshuram set him on fire. (d) Two dying declarations of Chandrakant came to be recorded by PW 3 Police Head Constable Jadhav and PW 2 Special Judicial Magistrate Shri. Mane. In the said dying declarations also, Chandrakant stated that appellant Parshuram poured petrol on him and appellant Lalita set him on fire. (d) Two dying declarations of Chandrakant came to be recorded by PW 3 Police Head Constable Jadhav and PW 2 Special Judicial Magistrate Shri. Mane. In the said dying declarations also, Chandrakant stated that appellant Parshuram poured petrol on him and appellant Lalita set him on fire. These dying declarations are at Exh. 20 and Exh. 18 respectively. Dying Declaration Exh. 20 which was recorded by PHC Jadhav was treated as FIR. Thereafter, investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against both the appellants -original accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Ms. Rohini Dandekar, the learned Advocate for both the appellants and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that appellant Parshuram poured petrol on Chandrakant and appellant Lalita set Chandrakant on fire and this act of both the appellants led to the death of Chandrakant. 5. The conviction of the appellants is mainly based on dying declaration Exh. 20 and Exh. 18. In addition, the prosecution is relying on oral dying declaration made by Chandrakant to his wife PW 4 Mangala. 6. Pw 3 Police Head Constable Jadhav recorded the first dying declaration of Chandrakant. PHC Jadhav has stated that he was in charge of Shastri Nagar Police Chowki from 8.00 p.m. on 25.10.2012 to 8.00 a.m. on 26.10.2012. He received intimation from Civil Hospital, Solapur about the admission of patient Chandrakant Kharade with burn injuries. PHC Jadhav then requested the Special Judicial Magistrate on phone to record dying declaration of patient Chandrakant. PHC Jadhav went to the hospital at about 9.00 a.m. on 26.10.2012. He told the doctor that he wanted to record the statement of the patient and sought permission of the Doctor. PHC Jadhav then requested the Special Judicial Magistrate on phone to record dying declaration of patient Chandrakant. PHC Jadhav went to the hospital at about 9.00 a.m. on 26.10.2012. He told the doctor that he wanted to record the statement of the patient and sought permission of the Doctor. He asked the doctor if the patient is conscious and is in a position to give a statement. After examining the patient, the doctor stated that the patient was conscious, oriented and was in a position to give statement. Thereafter, PHC Jadhav recorded the statement of Chandrakant. Chandrakant told him that on 25.10.2012 at about 10.30 p.m., he had requested the appellant to return his money which was taken as hand loan. The appellant told him to come home to take the money. When Chandrakant went to the house of the appellants, the appellants started hurling abuses at him. Appellant Parshuram poured petrol on Chandrakant and appellant Lalita set Chandrakant on fire. After recording the statement, the contents of the dying declaration were read over to the patient and he admitted them to be correct. PHC Jadhav then obtained thumb impression of the patient on the statement. This dying declaration is at Exh. 20. This dying declaration was treated as FIR. 7. Thereafter, PW 2 Special Judicial Magistrate Shri. Mane recorded the second dying declaration (Exh. 18) of Chandrakant. PW 2 Shri. Mane has stated that he was working as Superintendent in Civil Hospital, Solapur and he was also working as Special Judicial Magistrate. On 26.10.2012 at 9.30 a.m., he received a telephone call from Sadar Bazar Police Station. He was requested to record the dying declaration of Chandrakant Kharade. Immediately thereafter, he went to Civil Hospital, Solapur. On reaching the hospital, Shri. Mane requested the doctor to examine the patient and give certificate of his consciousness. Accordingly, the doctor examined the patient and gave endorsement to the effect that the patient was conscious and oriented. Thereafter, Shri. Mane recorded the dying declaration of Chandrakant. Chandrakant told him that on 25.10.2012, he had gone to the house of Parshuram for demanding Rs. 10,000/-. When he demanded that amount, Parshuram poured petrol on Chandrakant and Parshuram''s wife set Chandrakant on fire with a matchstick. After recording the statement, Shri. Mane read over the contents of the statement to the patient. He accepted it to be correct. Chandrakant told him that on 25.10.2012, he had gone to the house of Parshuram for demanding Rs. 10,000/-. When he demanded that amount, Parshuram poured petrol on Chandrakant and Parshuram''s wife set Chandrakant on fire with a matchstick. After recording the statement, Shri. Mane read over the contents of the statement to the patient. He accepted it to be correct. Thereafter, Shri. Mane obtained the thumb impression of Chandrakant on the statement. 8. Thus, it is seen that both the dying declarations are consistent. Both these witnesses i.e PW 2 SJM Shri. Mane and PW 3 PHC Jadhav have not been shaken in their crossexamination. We find that their testimony inspires confidence, hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same. 9. The evidence of PW 2 Shri. Mane and PW 3 PHC Jadhav is further corroborated by the evidence of PW 7 Dr. Korade. Dr. Korade has stated that he was working in Civil Hospital, Solapur from 2012. On 26.10.2012, he was on duty in the burn ward. On 26.10.2012 at 1.00 a.m., one patient was admitted in the burn ward. On 27.10.2012 at about 9.00 a.m., police officers arrived in the hospital. Dr. Korade has stated that he went along with the police to the patient. The name of the patient was Chandrakant Kharade. Dr. Korade examined the patient and found that the patient was conscious and oriented, hence, he permitted the police to record the statement of the patient. He also gave endorsement to the said effect on the dying declaration which is at Exh. 31. Dr. Korade has further stated that after some time, Special Judicial Magistrate came to the hospital. The Special Judicial Magistrate also sought permission for recording dying declaration of the said patient. Dr. Korade again examined the patient and found that the patient was conscious and oriented, hence, he permitted the Special Judicial Magistrate to record the statement of the patient and Dr. Korade also gave an endorsement on the said paper that the patient was conscious and oriented. These endorsements are at Exh. 32 and Exh. 33 respectively. 10. In addition to the two dying declarations Exh. 20 and Exh. 18, the prosecution is relying on oral dying declaration. This oral dying declaration was made by Chandrakant to PW 4 Mangala. Mangala was the wife of Chandrakant. These endorsements are at Exh. 32 and Exh. 33 respectively. 10. In addition to the two dying declarations Exh. 20 and Exh. 18, the prosecution is relying on oral dying declaration. This oral dying declaration was made by Chandrakant to PW 4 Mangala. Mangala was the wife of Chandrakant. Mangala has stated that she along with her family consisting of her husband Chandrakant, son Haridas and daughter-in-law were residing at Solapur. At about 10.30 p.m., her husband received a telephone call upon which he told Mangala that he would go out and come back within short time. At about 12.00 midnight, her son came home. At that time, her husband had not returned home. At about 1.15 a.m., she received a telephone call from police. They informed that her husband was admitted in the hospital. A police jeep came to her house and in the said police jeep, Mangala was taken to the hospital. When she met her husband, her husband told her that he went to the house of the appellants after receiving phone call. When he demanded back his money, abuses were hurled at him by the appellants. Her husband further told her that petrol was poured on his person by Parshuram and he was set on fire by Lalita i.e the wife of Parshuram. 11. It is the prosecution case that the incident took place in the house of the appellants. This is corroborated by PW 8 Vilas who is the spot panch. Vilas has stated that he was called by the police on 26.10.2012. The house belonged to Parshuram Vitkar (appellant/accused No. 1). Vilas noticed one green bottle smelling of petrol. He also noticed pieces of burnt shirt, match box and burnt match sticks at the spot. These articles came to be seized. These articles were sent to C.A. As per C.A. report Exh. 28, the partly burnt cloth pieces and the bottle seized from the spot tested positive for petroleum residues. This further corroborates the prosecution case. 12. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant Parshuram poured petrol on Chandrakant and appellant Lalita set Chandrakant on fire. This is further corroborated by the medical evidence. PW 1 Dr. Varshetti conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Chandrakant. He found almost 40% burn injuries. Dr. This further corroborates the prosecution case. 12. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant Parshuram poured petrol on Chandrakant and appellant Lalita set Chandrakant on fire. This is further corroborated by the medical evidence. PW 1 Dr. Varshetti conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Chandrakant. He found almost 40% burn injuries. Dr. Varshetti has stated that all the injuries were ante mortem and the probable cause of death was burn injuries. Thus, the medical evidence further corroborates the prosecution case. 13. On going through the record, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Parshuram poured kerosene on Chandrakant and appellant Lalita set Chandrakant on fire due to which Chandrakant sustained burn injuries and died. In view of all these facts, we find no merit in the appeals. Both the appeals are dismissed. 14. Office to communicate this order to the appellants who are in jail.