JUDGMENT : Sarang V. Kotwal, J. 1. This is an Appeal preferred by Appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 22/11/2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 375/07. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Daulat Khamar and learned APP Ms. P.P. Shinde for the State of Maharashtra. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows; The deceased Swati was wife of the Appellant. They were residing in village Pasure, Taluka Bhor, District Pune, with their 2½ year old son and the Appellant's mother. The incident took place on 15/01/2007. On that day, the Appellant's mother had gone to some other place. The Appellant started harassing the deceased since early morning. The Appellant wanted money to buy liquor. The Appellant was addicted to liquor and on that count he used to harass the deceased. The deceased could not provide him any money. The Appellant went out and consumed liquor. He returned after 02.00 p.m., after consuming liquor. He again picked up quarrel with his wife. The Appellant poured kerosene from a small lamp and also from a plastic can and set her on fire. The deceased rolled on the floor to extinguish the fire. Their neighbours took her to Government Hospital at Bhor around 06.00 p.m. Thereafter she was shifted to Sassoon Hospital at Pune and then to Surya Hospital, which was a private hospital. According to the prosecution case, in the hospital at Bhor her statement was recorded by Police Head Constable Prakash Popat Sonar, which was treated as her FIR. The offence was registered u/s. 307, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. On the next day at Sassoon Hospital, again her statement was recorded by Police Head Constable Anant Sitaram Dongare. On the third occasion when she was shifted to Surya Hospital, Doctor Sachin Bhagwan Shelar recorded her statement. Thus, there were three statements recorded as per her narration. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on 19/01/2007 and therefore all these statements became her Dying Declarations. The Appellant was arrested and investigation was carried out. On the third occasion when she was shifted to Surya Hospital, Doctor Sachin Bhagwan Shelar recorded her statement. Thus, there were three statements recorded as per her narration. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on 19/01/2007 and therefore all these statements became her Dying Declarations. The Appellant was arrested and investigation was carried out. During investigation, the spot Panchanama was conducted and statements of various witnesses were recorded. At the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Pune. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W. 1 Police Head Constable Prakash Popal Sonar had recorded the first Dying Declarations at Bhor. P.W. 2 Police Head Constable Anant Sitaram Dongare attached to Haveli Police Station had recorded her Dying Declaration on 16/01/2007 at Sassoon Hospital. P.W. 3 Dr. Sameer Popat Darawade was the Medical Officer attached to the Rural Hospital at Bhor, when her Dying Declaration was recorded. P.W. 4 Dr. Bhupendra Dinkar Mohole had conducted the postmortem examination which showed that she had suffered 89% burns. P.W. 5 Dr. Sachin Bhagwan Shelar had recorded the statement of deceased on 18/01/2007 at Surya Hospital, Pune. 6 Prakash Wamanrao Deshmukh was a Pancha for Spot Panchanama which was conducted on 16/01/2007. P.W. 7 PSI Tukaram Bajirao Surve was the Investigating Officer attached to Bhor Police Station, where the offence was registered vide C.R. No. 8/2007, initially u/s. 307, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and section 302 of IPC was added after her death. The Articles seized during the investigation were sent for chemical analysis. The report indicated that the clothes of the accused also showed presence of kerosene. 5. The defence of the Appellant as stated in his statement u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., was that on 15/01/2007 at about 06.30 p.m., while he was returning to his house after his daily agricultural work, he came to know that his wife had suffered burn injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital at Bhor. He had received this information from one Dyanoba Nathu Taru. It was his case in his statement that his wife Swati was angry with him because he had not sent her for the rituals connected to her Aunt's death. He had received this information from one Dyanoba Nathu Taru. It was his case in his statement that his wife Swati was angry with him because he had not sent her for the rituals connected to her Aunt's death. It is his further case in his statement that his wife had called her brother Santosh to take her to their parental house, but Santosh did not come and that was one more reason that she was angry. In that state of mind, she poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire and committed suicide. 6. He has further stated in his statement that she was never in a position to speak and therefore no Dying Declaration could have been recorded. In addition, to his statement u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., the Appellant examined two witnesses. His first witness D.W.1 Shashikant Tukaram More was a jeep driver who had taken the deceased to the Government Hospital at Bhor in his jeep. Thereafter he had removed her to Sassoon Hospital. He was examined by the Appellant to show that the deceased was unconscious when she was taken to Bhor Hospital. 7. D.W.2 Baban Bhaguji Gaikwad has deposed that he was with the Appellant from morning till about 05.45 p.m., when one person came and informed that the Appellant's wife had sustained burn injuries and she was being taken to Bhor. Both these witnesses were disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge. 8. The evidence of P.W. 1 Prakash Popal Sonar shows that on 15/01/2007 he had gone to the Rural Hospital at Bhor at about 06.30 p.m., after receiving a telephonic call from the Medical Officer attached to that Hospital. He enquired with Dr. Burande about her fitness for giving her statement. He has further deposed that he saw the patient and found that she was in a position to talk. The Doctor examined her in this witness's presence. Thereafter this witness made enquiries with the deceased. She stated that on 15/01/2007 since 05.00 a.m., the Appellant was quarreling with her and was demanding money for buying liquor. She further told this witness that the Appellant went out and came back after consuming liquor at about 02.00 p.m., and poured kerosene on her from a small lamp and a plastic can. Thereafter he set her on fire. Neighbours Rajendra Dhumal and others came there and shifted her to Rural Hospital at Bhor. She further told this witness that the Appellant went out and came back after consuming liquor at about 02.00 p.m., and poured kerosene on her from a small lamp and a plastic can. Thereafter he set her on fire. Neighbours Rajendra Dhumal and others came there and shifted her to Rural Hospital at Bhor. This statement of Swati was reduced to writing and was read out to her. P.W. 1 obtained her thumb impression on her statement. The said statement was treated as the FIR. The offence registered vide C.R. No. 8/07 at around 08.30 p.m. The statement is produced on record at Ex.27. 9. Mr. Khamkar submitted that the statement at Ex.27 shows that there was interpolation at least at two places. According to Mr. Khamkar, there was an insertion that 'apart from the small lamp, kerosene was poured from a plastic can' and about the timing of the incident as 05.30 p.m. We have perused the statement Ex.27. There is no basis to conclude that these two facts are interpolations or additions. No such question is put to P.W. 1 about the purported addition. Therefore we do not find any force in this submission of Mr. Khamar. 10. Mr. Khamar then submitted that sequence of things narrated in the said statement does not fit in the prosecution case. He submitted that according to this statement, the Appellant returned at 02.00 p.m., and immediately quarrel took place resulting in the incident of setting her ablaze. He submitted that the evidence shows that Swati was admitted to Bhor Hospital, around 06.00 p.m., and therefore the timings given in the said statement could not be true. Again we are unable to agree with the submissions made by Mr. Khamkar on this count. Though, this statement mentions that the Appellant returned at 02.00 p.m., and picked up quarrel; it does not by itself mean that the Appellant immediately poured kerosene on her at 02.00 p.m. According to her statement the Appellant returned at 02.00 p.m. and then the quarrel took place. The incident was result of the quarrel which had started right in the morning and therefore the prosecution has established that the incident of setting her at fire had taken place at about 05.30 p.m. 11. P.W.2 Mr. Anant Sitaram Dongare was the Police Head Constable attached to Haveli Police Station. The incident was result of the quarrel which had started right in the morning and therefore the prosecution has established that the incident of setting her at fire had taken place at about 05.30 p.m. 11. P.W.2 Mr. Anant Sitaram Dongare was the Police Head Constable attached to Haveli Police Station. On 16/01/2007 when he went to Sassoon Hospital, he met the doctor on duty and after obtaining the Medical Officer's opinion that Swati was in a position to give statement, he recorded her statement. The Medical Officer had given his endorsement on that statement. The statement recorded by him is produced on record at Ex.35. Even in this statement, the deceased had stated that at around 06.00 p.m. on 15/01/2007, the Appellant came home and asked money for buying liquor. Swati refused and therefore he poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Mr. Khamkar submitted that Ex.35 does not mention the time when it was recorded and even the endorsement of Doctor does not show the timing when it was recorded. He further submitted that the time of incident is mentioned as 06.00 p.m., as opposed to 05.30 p.m., mentioned in the first Dying Declaration at Ex.27. Further more, there was no reference to the quarrel which took place since morning and about the Appellant returning home having consumed liquor at 02.00 p.m. Thus, according to Mr. Khamkar there was material variance within the two Dying Declarations. We find that these discrepancies are not very material. The deceased had suffered 89% burn injuries and was in a traumatic condition and therefore a matter of half an hour cannot be termed as material discrepancy between the time of incident mentioned in both these Dying Declarations. The Dying Declaration was recorded and the endorsement of the Doctor is also mentioned on the same. The endorsement shows that it was recorded in the presence of the Medical Officer. 12. P.W. 3 Dr. Sameer Popat Darawade was attached to Rural Hospital at Bhor. He has deposed that Swati was admitted in that hospital at 06.00 p.m., and he himself had made enquiries with her. Swati had given history to him that she was assaulted at 05.30 p.m., by her husband in her house. He further deposed that the information was given to police who reached during half an hour and thereafter P.W. 1 recorded her Dying Declaration. Swati had given history to him that she was assaulted at 05.30 p.m., by her husband in her house. He further deposed that the information was given to police who reached during half an hour and thereafter P.W. 1 recorded her Dying Declaration. P.W. 3 has deposed that Swati was conscious and well oriented to give statement. He has identified his endorsement on the Dying Declaration at Ex.27. The cross examination of this witness does not in any way harm the prosecution case nor does it help the defence in any manner. 13. P.W. 5 Dr. Sachin Bhagwan Shelar, was attached to Surya Hospital, at Pune. He has recorded her Dying Declaration which is produced on record at Ex.60. The said Dying Declaration is written on a printed form. It also bears signature of the mother and the brother of the deceased. The main gist of the incident is the same as in the earlier two Dying Declarations. Mr. Khamkar criticized this Dying Declaration because it mentions that it was recorded in the presence of mother and brother of the deceased and therefore their tutoring cannot be ruled out. While, it is not established as to why such Dying Declaration was recorded in a printed format, the fact remains that Dr. Sachin Shelar-P.W. 5, is also an independent witness and he has no reason to support the prosecution case. He has explained that the mother and brother of Swati were present outside the ward and he obtained their thumb impression and signature respectively. Thus, according to him, when the statement was recorded, these two witnesses were not inside the ward. 14. Mr. Khamar submitted that the patient survived for four days. In between three Dying Declarations were recorded. But, on none of the occasions it was recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate. He submitted that the prosecution has not explained as to why the services of Special Executive Magistrate could not be procured for recording the Dying Declaration. While it is true that it is desirable to get services of such independent officer to record a Dying Declaration, that by itself cannot wash out the Dying Declarations by the other witnesses; particularly when we find that their evidence is reliable. All these three Dying Declarations were recorded after the persons recording them, were satisfied themselves that the patient was in a proper state to give her statement. All these three Dying Declarations were recorded after the persons recording them, were satisfied themselves that the patient was in a proper state to give her statement. In the first two Dying Declarations, there are endorsements of the Medical Officers to that effect as well. The third Dying Declaration was recorded by the Medical Officer of Surya Hospital himself. Therefore we find that the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to show that the deceased was in a proper state medically to give her statement. Her statement was recorded in sufficient details. There is hardly any material discrepancy in the narration in all these three Dying Declarations and therefore we find them to be consistent with each other. 15. Mr. Khamkar relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Parveen Kumar, reported in (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 769, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Court must be satisfied that the Dying Declaration was truthful and if there were two Dying Declarations giving two different versions, a serious doubt was created about the truthfulness of the Dying Declarations. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that one piece of unreliable evidence cannot be used to corroborate another piece of unreliable evidence. In the instant case we are satisfied that the Dying Declarations are truthful and they are not unreliable. Therefore the ratio laid down in this judgment is not attracted in the present facts before us. 16. The defence witnesses' evidence does not inspire confidence. D.W. 1 has deposed that the deceased was unconscious when she was being taken to the hospital at Pune. However, his evidence cannot over shadow the evidence of the other witness in respect of recording of her Dying Declaration in the Bhor Hospital because this witness had not entered the ward where the Dying Declaration was recorded. Insofar as the evidence of D.W. 2 is concerned through his evidence the Appellant has tried to establish his alibi. The evidence of this witness considered in the background of the overwhelming evidence led by the prosecution shows that it is only an attempt made by the Appellant to establish his innocence. Considering the entire evidence led by the prosecution and after taking overall view of the matter, we find the prosecution has conclusively established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Considering the entire evidence led by the prosecution and after taking overall view of the matter, we find the prosecution has conclusively established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Judge has properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly convicted the Appellant. Thus, we do not find any merit in the Appeal and accordingly the Appeal is dismissed.