Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 124 (RAJ)

Surendra Sen v. State

2019-01-10

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellant stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No. 2/2013. S. No. Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded 1. 302 IPC Life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment fine, further to undergo two months simple imprisonment 2. 498-A IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment fine, further to undergo two months simple imprisonment 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC. 3. Succinctly stated, facts relevant and germane for deciding the appeal are summarized herein-below. 4. Sub-Inspector Sallu Khan posted at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur recorded a Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) of Smt. Sangeeta, wife of the appellant herein, in the emergency ward at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur on 24.07.2011 at 11.30 p.m. In the said statement, Smt. Sangeeta divulged that she was married to Surendra Sen, the appellant herein, about nine years ago. She had a son named Akash from the wedlock with the appellant. Her husband was doing the job of barber in the BZS Colony, Jodhpur. In the very same night at about 8-9 o'clock, she lit a lamp for offering prayers and threw the burning matchstick on the floor. Kerosine had spilled from a bottle lying on the floor and as a result, no sooner the matchstick fell on the spilt kerosine, her clothes accidentally caught fire. Her husband, who was at home, came and both of them doused the fire. She herself poured water to put out the fire. For quite some time, she remained at the spot. Thereafter her cousin brother (Bua's son) Pukhraj sen came to her house and took her to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur in a taxi. Thereafter her family members, i.e. mother, father and brother also reached the hospital. She stated that she had not been set to fire by anyone. She had no quarrel with her husband. She accidentally caught fire while lighting the lamp. Since from this statement, ingredients of offence was not being disclosed, no action was taken. 5. Thereafter her family members, i.e. mother, father and brother also reached the hospital. She stated that she had not been set to fire by anyone. She had no quarrel with her husband. She accidentally caught fire while lighting the lamp. Since from this statement, ingredients of offence was not being disclosed, no action was taken. 5. The paternal family members of Smt. Sangeeta made a complaint to the SHO, Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur that the said Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) had been given by her under pressure. Thereupon, the SHO filed an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur for getting the statement of Smt. Sangeeta recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. Thereupon, Shri Santosh Agrawal, Judicial Magistrate, 6. Jodhpur recorded the statement of Smt. Sangeeta under Section 164 Cr.PC on 25.07.2011 at 12.02 p.m. after taking the requisite certificate from Dr. Krishna Kumar, the treating doctor, that the patient was in a fit condition to give her statement. In this statement, Smt. Sangeeta alleged that on 24.07.2011 at about 7 o'clock, her mother-in-law came to her house and instigated her husband that his wife, i.e. Smt. Sangeeta, was in habit of loitering around here and there and was not of good character. She allegedly told the appellant that Sangeeta should be set right and that they would ensure that nothing happens to him. Saying so, her mother-in-law took away her son. Her husband brought and consumed liquor at about 9.45 in the night. Her husband doused her with kerosine, which was lying in the house in a plastic bottle. Thereafter, he went to the kitchen, brought matches and set her Saree on fire. She tried to save herself, but could not succeed. The door of the house was bolted. She started shouting, opened the door, rushed out and poured water upon herself from pitcher and doused the fire. Her husband bolted the room from inside. For quite some time, she remained there. Her cousin Pukhraj Sen came around and took her to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. Her parents also came to the hospital. She alleged that right from the time of her marriage with the appellant, he used to beat her after making false imputations on her character. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law also used to taunt her on account of dowry given to her in the marriage. Both of them often imputed that she was involved in prostitution. She alleged that right from the time of her marriage with the appellant, he used to beat her after making false imputations on her character. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law also used to taunt her on account of dowry given to her in the marriage. Both of them often imputed that she was involved in prostitution. She further stated that as a matter of fact, she used to work in Anganwadi. She did not make complaint of this torture to anybody because she was afraid for her family. Her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law had taken her ornaments. She was never given due respect as a family member and was treated like a servant. Her husband was in a habit of breaking the household articles under the influence of liquor. Whenever she complained about his misbehavour to her in-laws, rather than counselling her husband, her mother-in-law threatened her that she should go away and tried to justify the offensive acts of her son. She categorically stated that on 24.07.2011, she did not disclose all these facts in her Parcha Bayan because her husband, who was having the custody of her son, had threatened her that if she told the police that he had set her to fire, then her son would be killed. In the morning, her son was brought to the hospital. Thereafter, she gathered the courage to give correct statement. 7. The second Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8) of Smt. Sangeeta under treatment in the Burn Unit of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 25.07.2011 at 2.30 p.m. In such statement, Smt. Sangeeta virtually repeated the allegations set out in her statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC. She alleged that after her husband had set her to fire by pouring kerosine upon her person, she herself doused the fire. Her husband neither tried to save her, nor did he bring her to the hospital. Her cousin Pukhraj Sen brought her to the hospital. She had been continuously maltreated in the matrimonial home. Her mother-in-law had taken away her son Akash at about 5 o'clock. Her husband neither tried to save her, nor did he bring her to the hospital. Her cousin Pukhraj Sen brought her to the hospital. She had been continuously maltreated in the matrimonial home. Her mother-in-law had taken away her son Akash at about 5 o'clock. The first statement given by her to the Investigating Officer Sallu Khan, S.I., Police Station Mahamandir was incorrect because she was afraid for the fate of her child, who was in the custody of the accused and a threat had been given to her that in case she disclosed the true picture and incriminated the accused, the child would be killed. On the basis of this statement, a formal FIR No. 299/2011 was registered at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 307 IPC and investigation was commenced. 8. The Investigating Officer carried out the site inspection of the place of occurrence. The burnt clothes lying in the room, where Smt. Sangeeta was set afire, were collected. The bottle containing kerosine was also seized. The burnt pieces of clothes and other articles seized during the course of investigation were forwarded to the FSL, from where a report (Ex.P/34) dated 24.09.2012 was received indicating presence of kerosine residue in the burnt pieces of clothes. While undergoing treatment, Smt. Sangeeta passed away on 01.08.2011, on which her dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. As per the postmortem examination report, the lower limb of the deceased had escaped the impact of fire, whereas the entire upper parts of body, including the chest, abdomen, neck, face etc. were having superficial to deep burns. The cause of death was opined to be septicemic shock as a result of 99% burns. 9. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file charge-sheet against the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 406 IPC and against the co-accused Ambalal and Bidami for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 109 IPC. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, from where the same was transferred for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan. Upon abolition of the Fast Track courts, the case was transferred for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan. Upon abolition of the Fast Track courts, the case was transferred for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences mentioned above. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses in support of its case. The accused, upon being examined under Section 313 Cr.PC denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case. The appellant Surendra Sen stated that Smt. Sangeeta set herself afire. Two witnesses were examined in defence. After hearing the arguments of defence as well as the prosecution and after appreciating the entire material available on record, the trial court acquitted the co-accused Ambalal and Bidami from the charges. While acquitting the present appellant from the charge for the offence under Section 406 IPC, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence him as above by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. 10. Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the trial court committed grave error in law in placing reliance upon the second Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8) and the dying declaration (Ex.P/36) of the deceased recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. As per him, the first Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) of the deceased was the only and the absolutely correct version of the incident and was faithfully recorded by Sallu Khan, S.I. (PW-6) in presence of father and other paternal relatives of the deceased and as such, there was no occasion or justification for the trial court to have discarded the said Parcha Bayan and to have given precedence to the subsequent versions deposed by Smt. Sangeeta in the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8) and the dying declaration (Ex.P/36) recorded by the Judicial Magistrate for convicting the appellant. He urged that from the testimony of Medical Jurist PW-24 Dr. D.D. Meena, it is clear that the doctor did not notice any traces of kerosine when postmortem was carried out on the body of the deceased. He further submitted that the doctor conducting postmortem also admitted that the lips of the deceased were 100% burnt and her tongue was also burnt and thus, there was hardly any possibility that the deceased could have given the detailed statements Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/36. He further submitted that the doctor conducting postmortem also admitted that the lips of the deceased were 100% burnt and her tongue was also burnt and thus, there was hardly any possibility that the deceased could have given the detailed statements Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/36. He, thus, contended that these statements should be discarded and the accused appellant deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. He further urged that the trial court has itself discarded the material parts of the dying declaration of Smt. Sangeeta, wherein she levelled allegations of instigation and extortion and maltreatment for demand of dowry against the acquitted co-accused Ambalal and Bidami. He, thus, implored the court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellant from the charges. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He contended that the first dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Sangeeta (Ex.P/7) was recorded in the situation, where the accused party had taken custody of Aakash, the only child of the appellant and the deceased and she had been given a veiled threat that in case, she divulged to the police that the husband had burnt her, then the child would be done to death. Under this treat and compulsion, the lady could not divulge the truth because she was fearing for her child and her maternal instincts prevented her from disclosing the true picture to the police officer, who recorded her first Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7). However, no sooner, the child came to the hospital, the fear perception of the lady for the child's safety came to an end and then she could gather the courage to disclose the true version of the incident in her statement (Ex.P/36) recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on 25.07.2011 at 12.02 p.m. and thereafter, to the Investigating Officer (Ex.P/8) recorded on 25.07.2011 at 2.30 pm. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the conduct of the appellant in failing to make any attempt to douse his burning wife's fire despite admittedly being present inside the house and in failing to take her to the hospital clearly points to his guilty state of mind. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the conduct of the appellant in failing to make any attempt to douse his burning wife's fire despite admittedly being present inside the house and in failing to take her to the hospital clearly points to his guilty state of mind. He further urged that the presence of Kerosine residue in the burnt pieces of clothes worn by the deceased Smt. Sangeeta clearly belie the version as set out in her first Parcha Bayan Ex.P/7, wherein the theory of accidental fire was portrayed just because of the fear perception of the deceased for the fate of her child, who was in the custody of the accused. He urged that the trial court appreciated in detail and in a just and apropos manner the entire evidence available on record and came to the only logical conclusion that the appellant set the deceased to fire after pouring kerosine upon her and thereby murdered her. He, thus, implored the court to dismiss the appeal. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have threadbare re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 13. Primarily, the case of prosecution hinges upon the two statements of the deceased, which fall within the definition of dying declaration; first of them being the statement (Ex.P/36) recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Shri Santosh Agrawal (PW-23) on 25.07.2011 at 12.02 pm. and the second being the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8) recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW-6) on 25.07.2011 at 2.30 p.m. In both of these statements, which assumed the status of dying declaration after Smt. Sangeeta expired, there are crystal clear allegations that the accused poured kerosine upon his wife and then set her afire. Contrary to these statements, the defence places heavy reliance on the first Parcha Bayan of the deceased (Ex.P/7) recorded by the Investigating Officer Sallu Khan (PW-6), posted at Police Station Mahamandir, wherein, the theory of accidental fire was set out. As has been described above, the first Parcha Bayan substantially exonerates the appellant, whereas, the subsequent two statements (Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/36) implicate him to the hilt for the offence of murder of Smt. Sangeeta. Therefore, it has to be evaluated and resolved as to which of the three statements are more credible and reliable and deserve to be admitted and read in evidence as the substantive truth. Therefore, it has to be evaluated and resolved as to which of the three statements are more credible and reliable and deserve to be admitted and read in evidence as the substantive truth. It is an admitted position even from the first exculpatory statement of the deceased (Ex.P/7) that the appellant was very much present in the house when Smt. Sangeeta, being his wife, caught fire. Though Smt. Sangeeta stated that she and her husband tried to put out the accidental fire from her clothes which occurred while lighting the Pooja lamp, but in the same breath, she stated that she ran out from the room, poured water from the water pitcher and put out the fire. She further stated that for quite some time thereafter, she remained in the same position. Her cousin brother Pukhraj Sen, who lives in the neighborhood, came and took her to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur in a taxi. If the conduct of the appellant was having even a tinge of innocence, then the bare minimum which was expected from him, was that, he should have tried to put out the fire and take his wife to the hospital. The normal human conduct of even a stranger, who comes across such a set of events, would be to provide immediate medical adi to the victim. In the present case, the appellant, being the husband of the deceased and he being present in the house at the relevant time, made no effort whatsoever to douse her fire or to provide her primary medical aid, what to talk of taking her to hospital. If at all, the theory of accidental burns was having even a shred of truth, then there was no reason as to why the appellant would not have restored to the bare minimal humane steps of dousing the fire of his wife and to take her to the hospital. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC the appellant categorically stated that his wife set herself to fire. Thus, the theory of accidental fire is not corroborated by the defence story. He never offered an explanation that he tried to either douse the fire or provided any medical aid to his burning wife. Therefore, conduct of the appellant is surrounded under a dark cloud of doubt pointing towards his deep rooted involvement in the crime. Thus, the theory of accidental fire is not corroborated by the defence story. He never offered an explanation that he tried to either douse the fire or provided any medical aid to his burning wife. Therefore, conduct of the appellant is surrounded under a dark cloud of doubt pointing towards his deep rooted involvement in the crime. In the exculpatory Parcha Bayan also (Ex.P/7) also, the deceased did not state about the presence of her only child in the house. Manifestly, thus, the explanation given by her in the incriminating dying declaration (Ex.P/36) and Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8) that her mother-in-law had taken away her child in the evening is plausible and acceptable. Since the appellant made no effort whatsoever to save his wife, the explanation set out in the subsequent dying declarations (Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/36) that the appellant threatened the deceased that her child would be done to death and thus she was compelled to give the exculpatory statement (Ex.P/7) is highly probable and rather appears to be the absolute truth. In this background, the contention advanced by the learned defence counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh that the first Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) of the deceased is her truthful version is not fit to be accepted. Not only this, there are numerous other reasons for discarding the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7). If at all the version as set out in the statement Ex.P/7 is to be accepted, then manifestly, it was a case wherein, the kerosine had been spilled on the ground and the clothes of the deceased accidentally caught fire when she threw burning matchstick on the floor. Had this been the situation, then there was no occasion for the presence of kerosine residue in the burnt pieces of clothes collected by the Investigating Officer from the body of the deceased. The presence of kerosine residue on the burnt clothes pieces as opined in the FSL Report (Ex.P/7) gives ample indication that the deceased was set to fire after pouring kerosine on her clothes. There is yet another reason for coming to this conclusion, inasmuch as, Dr. D.D. Meena (PW-24), who conducted the postmortem upon the body of the deceased, stated that feet of the deceased had escaped fire. If the fire had spread from the floor, then the impact thereof would definitely have hit the feet of the deceased at the first instance and they could not have remained unscathed. D.D. Meena (PW-24), who conducted the postmortem upon the body of the deceased, stated that feet of the deceased had escaped fire. If the fire had spread from the floor, then the impact thereof would definitely have hit the feet of the deceased at the first instance and they could not have remained unscathed. Therefore also, we are of the firm opinion that the version as set out in the first Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) of the deceased does not give true picture of the incident and the said statement appears to have been given by the deceased under fear that her child, who was in control of the accused, could be harmed. 14. Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant, also contended that the deceased was not in position to give the dying declaration (Ex.P/36) and the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8) in light of the admission made by PW-24 Dr. D.D. Meena, the doctor, who conducted postmortem, that the face, lips and tongue of the deceased had 100% burnt. Suffice to say that the doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 01.08.2011, i.e. after nearly 6 days of the incident. In the meantime, Smt. Sangeeta was being treated at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. The Judicial Magistrate Shri Santosh Agrawal (PW-23) recorded her dying declaration after taking opinion of the treating doctor Shri Krishna Kumar, who confirmed and gave a certificate to the effect that the injured lady was in a fit condition to give statement. Had there been any pith or substance in the version of Dr. D.D. Meena that Smt. Sangeeta was not in a position to give the statement, then there is no explanation as to how her Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7), on which the defence places heavily reliance, came to be recorded. PW-2 Amar Singh, being the neighbour of the deceased and the appellant, stated that the accused and Smt. Sangeeta often quarreled with each other. On the fateful day, he came out of his room and saw Sangeeta burning. She was running helter and skelter and was crying out. Hussain Khan's wife covered her with some cloth. Surendra was inside the room. People knocked the door, but he did not come out. Surendra was asked as to how the deceased caught fire, but he did not offer any explanation. Their son was not present in the house at that time. Hussain Khan's wife covered her with some cloth. Surendra was inside the room. People knocked the door, but he did not come out. Surendra was asked as to how the deceased caught fire, but he did not offer any explanation. Their son was not present in the house at that time. Nothing significant could be elicited by the defence in the cross-examination conducted from this witness. Similar statement was given by PW-3 Hussain Khan. From the statements of these witnesses, we are duly satisfied that the accused made no effort whatsoever to douse the fire of his wife and rather bolted the door from inside after she had come out having received the burn injuries inside the room, where both were present. The lady doused the fire on her own by pouring the pitcher of water on her person. This conduct of the accused clearly points to his guilty demeanor. PW-5 Pukhraj Sen, being the relative of the deceased, testified that Smt. Sangeeta's neighbours called him on 24.07.2011 at 9.30 in the night and told him that Sangeeta had received burn injuries. He rushed to the house of Sangeeta, who was standing outside the main gate in a burnt condition and was crying. He did not see her husband. He took Sangeeta to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur and got her admitted in the burn ward. The witness signed the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7). 15. Sallu Khan (PW-6) deposed that he recorded the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) of Smt. Sangeeta whereafter, her paternal relatives approached the SHO, Police Station Mahamandir and complained that the first statement had been given by Smt. Sangeeta under the threat and fear of her husband that that she desired to give a fresh statement. Therefore, the fresh statement (Ex.P/8) of Smt. Sangeeta was recorded by this witness. PW-21 Kesu Lal, being the father of the deceased, and PW-1 Subhash, being the brother of the deceased, gave evidence to the effect that they received the information regarding Sangeeta having received burn injuries. They reached the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. Sangeeta was speaking at that time. She was saying that she had been burnt by her in-laws and her husband. She requested that her child had been taken by her mother in law and that he should be brought back. Sangeeta remained hospitalized for 8-9 days. They reached the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. Sangeeta was speaking at that time. She was saying that she had been burnt by her in-laws and her husband. She requested that her child had been taken by her mother in law and that he should be brought back. Sangeeta remained hospitalized for 8-9 days. None of the matrimonial relatives of Sangeeta came to the hospital during this period. Surendra used to beat Sangeeta after consuming liquor. Nothing significant was elicited from these two witnesses during their cross-examination. PW-23 Shri Santosh Agrawal recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P/36) of Smt. Sangeeta after assuring himself about her fit state to give such statement and after taking the fitness certificate from Dr. Krishna Kumar (PW-26). The doctor gave a categoric statement that he examined Smt. Sangeeta and gave the certificate regarding her fit mental and physical state for giving the statement after examining her and upon being fully satisfied in this behalf. Nothing significant could be extracted from these two witnesses in their cross-examination so as to cast a doubt on the veracity of the dying declaration (Ex.P/36). The evidence of the remaining prosecution witnesses is formal in nature. 16. As has been mentioned above, the accused-appellant, upon being examined under Section 313 Cr.PC gave a bald explanation that he had been falsely implicated in this case and that Sangeeta had set fire to herself. The defence witness Govind Singh (DW-1) alleged that he was residing in the neighbourhood of the accused. He received information about Surendra's wife having received burns and went there at once, where his relative Dharmendra was already present. Dharmendra made an inquiry from Sangeeta, upon which, she stated that she received accidental burns when she was offering prayers and threw a burning matchstick on the floor, where a kerosine had been spilt. The witness further stated that Surendra was dousing fire of Sangeeta by pouring water on her. At that time, the maternal relatives of Sangeeta came there and started assaulting Surendra, who went inside and bolted the room to save himself. Manifestly, the version of this witness is totally false and fabricated because even the appellant Surendra himself has not taken any such plea in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that he came out and tried to douse the fire of Smt. Sangeeta. Similar statement was given by Balwant Singh (PW-2). 17. Manifestly, the version of this witness is totally false and fabricated because even the appellant Surendra himself has not taken any such plea in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that he came out and tried to douse the fire of Smt. Sangeeta. Similar statement was given by Balwant Singh (PW-2). 17. In wake of the discussion made above, we are of the firm opinion that these two defence witnesses were created and a cooked up story was deposed by them to lend credence to the fictitious defence theory. In view of the above narration, we concur with the findings recorded in the trial court's judgment that Smt. Sangeeta gave the exculpatory Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) exonerating the accused because she was apprehensive about the safety of her child, who was in control of the accused party. Soon after the statement was recorded, the parental family members of the deceased made a complaint at the police station that her statement was recorded under the threat of her husband whereafter, the SHO filed the application and got recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P/36) by the Judicial Magistrate wherein Smt. Sangeeta categorically stated that the accused appellant poured kerosine on her person and then set her to fire. Similar version was deposed by Sangeeta in the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8), which was also recorded on 25.07.2011. The version as set out in the first Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) is not corroborated by various other circumstances, which we have discussed supra. On the contrary, the version as set out in the dying declaration (Ex.P/36) and the subsequent Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8) of the deceased is truthful, trustworthy and worthy of reliance. The conduct of the appellant in failing to take any steps to douse fire of his wife or to take her to the hospital for providing her treatment gives ample indication about his guilty demeanor and lends credence to the two dying declarations of the deceased. 18. As an upshot of the above discussion, we hereby hold that the learned trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in an apropos manner while recording the guilt of the appellant vide the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2015 which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity whatsoever warranting interference by this court in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. As an upshot of the above discussion, we hereby hold that the learned trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in an apropos manner while recording the guilt of the appellant vide the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2015 which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity whatsoever warranting interference by this court in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. The conviction of the appellant as recorded vide impugned judgment dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No. 2/2013 is based on sound, unimpeachable, cogent and convincing evidence. Thus, we find no merit in the instant appeal, which is hereby dismissed.