JUDGMENT Krishna Mohan, J. - The present Criminal Appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') by the accused No.1 against the Judgment, dated 24.07.2015 in Sessions Case No.159 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, where under the accused No.1 was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. The learned Sessions Judge ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. However, accused No.2 was found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 109 of IPC and was acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 assailed the conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.159 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool on various grounds. 2. The facts of the case as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are as follows: (i) Accued No.l is the husband of deceased and Accused No.2 is the mother of Al. The deceased was the daughter of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the brother and P.W.3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. Prior to marriage of the deceased with accused No.1, both of them fell in love with each other and their marriage was performed by the parents of the deceased against the wishes of parents of the accused No.1. Accused No.2, who is the mother of accused No.1, attended the marriage, but she did not allow the deceased into their house for want of dowry. Deceased and accused No.1 lead their marital life in a rented house in Budhawarpeta, Kurnool. Deceased used to visit the house of P.W.1 now and then and inform about the harassment of her husband/accused No.1 without any cause at the instigation of his mother. Deceased and accused No.1 lead their marital life in a rented house in Budhawarpeta, Kurnool. Deceased used to visit the house of P.W.1 now and then and inform about the harassment of her husband/accused No.1 without any cause at the instigation of his mother. Unable to bear the harassment, at the request of the deceased, a panchayat was conducted by P.W.6/Pamanna to resolve the issues between the accused No.l and the deceased. In the panchayat, accused No.l agreed to pay Rs.35,000/- to the deceased to live separately away from him. The accused No.1 never obliged to the terms of the panchayat and deceased never received any amount from them. After the panchayat, the deceased started living separately. Later, P.Ws.1 to 3 came to know that accused No.l was going to contact second marriage, so they tried to perform the marriage of the deceased. Having come to know of it, accused No.l came to the deceased and requested her to join him and that he will look after her properly. Believing the words of accused No.l, deceased joined him. (ii) One week prior to the incident, P.Ws.1 to 3 were informed by the deceased that she was suffering from typhoid and that accused No.l took her gold ear studs and mortgaged them to provide treatment to her. Whenever she requested to get back the gold ear studs which were mortgaged, accused No.l used to pick up quarrel, beat her and also threaten to kill her. (iii) Further, it is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident i.e., on 08.07.2012, at about 5.00 p.m., a neighbour of the deceased informed P.Ws.1 to 3 that the deceased with burning injuries was shifted to Kurnool Government Hospital. Then, P.Ws.1 to 3 rushed to the hospital, and found the deceased with severe burn injuries. On enquiry by P.W.1, the deceased informed that on that day at 4.00 p.m., when the deceased asked accused No.l about her gold ear studs, he picked up a quarrel, and in that quarrel, deceased stated that it would be better for her to die, then accused No.1 poured kerosene saying that he himself would kill her and lit fire. When the flames engulfed, deceased caught hold of accused No.1 from his back. Then accused No.1 separated himself and left the scene. When the flames engulfed, deceased caught hold of accused No.1 from his back. Then accused No.1 separated himself and left the scene. On hearing the cries of the deceased, P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 rushed to the spot, put off the flames on the deceased and then, accused No.1 and deceased were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment. (iv) On the requisition of duty doctor, on 09.07.2012 at about 12.55 a.m., under Ex.P7, P.W.10/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool rushed to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P8 dying declaration. On receipt of information from outpost police station, Kurnool under Ex.P10, P.W.12 SubInspector of Police, Kurnool Ill Town Police station went to the hospital, recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P1, basing on which a case in Crime No.163 of 2012 came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC under Ex.P12. During the course of investigation, P.W.12 examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, observed the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P14 and seized the material objects under the cover of panchanama under Ex.P13. (v) On 15.07.2012 at about 7.23 hours, the deceased died due to burn injuries while undergoing treatment in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. After receiving the death intimation of the deceased, P.W.13 altered the Section of law from Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC to Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators under Ex.P17 and sent the dead body of the deceased to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool for autopsy. P.W.11 the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P9 Post mortem Certificate, opining that the approximate time of death of the deceased would be on 15.07.2012 at 7.23 a.m., and the cause of the death of the deceased was due to Septicemic shock due to ante-mortem mixed degree flame burns. (vi) On 29.01.2013 at about 12.00 hours, on receipt of intimation about the discharge of accused No.1 from the hospital, P.W.14 arrested accused No.l and sent him to judicial custody. On 12.02.2013 at about 11.45 hours, P. W.14 arrested accused No.2 and sent to judicial custody. (vi) On 29.01.2013 at about 12.00 hours, on receipt of intimation about the discharge of accused No.1 from the hospital, P.W.14 arrested accused No.l and sent him to judicial custody. On 12.02.2013 at about 11.45 hours, P. W.14 arrested accused No.2 and sent to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed charge sheet against both the accused. 3. The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC against both the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool and registered the same as PRC No.50 of 2013. The learned Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class, Kurnool committed the case to the Sessions Division, Kurnool, as the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool registered the same as Sessions Case No.159 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool. 4. Upon hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel, the Sessions Court framed charges against the accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and framed charge under Section 498-A read with 109 of IPC against the accused No.1, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.Pl to P17 and M.Os.1 to 8 to substantiate the case of the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating material that appeared against them in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel, the learned Sessions Judge believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the dying declaration recorded by P.W.10 Magistrate coupled with medical evidence and convicted accused No.l for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC, while acquitting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with 109 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, accused No.1 preferred the present appeal on various grounds. 7. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, accused No.1 preferred the present appeal on various grounds. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 mainly contended that the trail court placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are related and interested witnesses and that they are having grouse on accused No.l, who did not look after the deceased well and used to harass her. It is further contended by the learned counsel for appellant/accused No.l that the deceased was tutored to give statement against the appellant and there is no convincing evidence to show that the deceased was mentally conscious and capable of giving statement. Hence, pleaded that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.W.15, as he was not the duty doctor attending on the deceased, when P.W.10 came to the hospital to record the statement of the deceased. It is further contended that the dying declaration suffers from infirmities and it is highly unsafe to act on the dying declaration, more so when there is no corroboration to the contents of the dying declaration. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the appellant/accused No.l beyond all reasonable doubt. He further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would establish involvement of appellant/accused No.l in litting fire to the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is that the deceased informed them that it was the accused No.l, who poured kerosene on her and set her to fire. Further, he would contend that the evidence of doctor/P.W.15 also corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the dying declaration before P.W.10/Judicial Magistrate of I Class can form the basis to convict accused No.l. The learned Public Prosecutor further contends that P.W.12, the investigating officer, after receipt of the intimation from Government General Hospital, Kurnool went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P11 which formed the basis for First Information Report. It is thus contended that the statements of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer, vide Ex.P15, statements before P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.10 and P.W.12 being consistent to the effect that accused No.l poured kerosene and set her on fire and that accused No.1 sustained injuries when deceased caught hold of him, can be made the basis to convict accused No.1. 9. 9. Considering the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC and whether the learned trial judge was right in convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the said offences? POINT:- 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested and related witnesses and hence, it is unsafe to rely upon their evidence. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant/accused No.1 committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 11. As seen from the evidence on record, the entire case rests on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.10 and P.W.12 and the oral statements of the deceased made before P.Ws.1 to 3, dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate and also the statement of the deceased recorded by the police officer which found the basis of the First Information Report. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent with regard to the cruelty meted out to the deceased. 12. P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased in her evidence deposed that the marriage between the appellant/accused No.1 and the deceased took place against the wishes of parents of appellant/accused No.1 and the mother of accused No.1 did not allow her daughter into their house for want of dowry. The deceased used to visit her house quite often and complain about the harassment of the appellant/accused No.1 towards her. Unable to bear the same, at the request of the deceased, a panchayat was conducted at the instance of the village elders and in that panchayat, it was settled by P.W.6 that appellant/accused No.1 shall pay Rs.35,000/- to the deceased and the deceased was asked to live separately. Accordingly, the deceased was living separately, but the appellant/accused No.1 did not pay any amount. P.W.1 further deposed that as the appellant/accused No.1 was going to contact second marriage, they also decided to get the deceased married of second time. Having come to know of it, appellant/accused No.1 requested the deceased to join him and assured that he will look after properly, for which the deceased joined him again. P.W.1 further deposed that as the appellant/accused No.1 was going to contact second marriage, they also decided to get the deceased married of second time. Having come to know of it, appellant/accused No.1 requested the deceased to join him and assured that he will look after properly, for which the deceased joined him again. But the appellant/accused No.1 continued his harassment and one week prior to the incident, deceased informed P.W.1 that appellant/accused No.1 pledged her ear studs for getting her treated for typhoid and whenever she requests her husband to get back the ear studs, he used to pick up a quarrel and beat her. The said version of P.W.1 is corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are brother and sister-in-law of the deceased and nothing much was elicited to contradict in the cross examination. 12. The evidence of P.W.6 corroborates the version of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to conducting the panchayat and settling the mater between the Appellant/accused No.1 and the deceased. Basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.6, it is clear that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in the hands of Appellant/accused No.1. Hence, the finding of the trial court in convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, warrants no interference. 13. It is to be seen whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/accused No.1 that the dying declaration suffers from infirmities and it is highly unsafe to act on dying declarations, as there is no convincing evidence that the deceased was mentally conscious and capable of giving statement, as she sustained 90% burn injuries. 15. As seen from the evidence on record, the prosecution is relying upon three sets of dying declaration to connect the accused with the crime. The first set of dying declaration is the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to P.Ws. 1 to 3, the second set of dying declaration is the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, who was examined as P.W.10 and the third set of dying declaration is the statement of the deceased recorded by the SubInspector of Police, who was examined as P.W.12. 16. 1 to 3, the second set of dying declaration is the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, who was examined as P.W.10 and the third set of dying declaration is the statement of the deceased recorded by the SubInspector of Police, who was examined as P.W.12. 16. In so far as the first set of dying declaration is concerned, P.Ws.1 to 3, being mother, brother and sister-in-law deposed in their evidence deposed that at about two years back prior to their evidence on Sunday between 5.00 to 6.00 p.m., they came to know through the neighbours of the deceased that the deceased was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries, proceeded to the hospital to see the deceased. When enquired about the cause for injuries, the deceased expressed in clear terms that accused No.1 poured kerosene and set her on fire. This was the immediate version coming from the mouth of the deceased as soon as she was taken to hospital. P.Ws.1 to 3, being close family members of the deceased, after having come to know that deceased was shifted to hospital with burn injuries, rushed to the hospital which is quiet but natural. The statement of the deceased to P.Ws.1 to 3 is quite consistent with the dying declaration recorded by P.W.10/Magistrate, which we will discuss now. 17. As seen from the evidence of P.W.10/Magistrate, it is evident that on 09.07.2012 at about 12.55 a.m., on receipt of intimation from the hospital under Ex.P7, she proceeded to the hospital and after being satisfied with the mental condition of the injured and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor and having satisfied with the mental condition of the injured, P.W.10 recorded the statement of the injured under Ex.P8, read over in Telugu and took the left thumb impression, as patient expressed her inability to sign. The deceased stated before P.W.10 that there was quarrel between the deceased and her husband in the evening, for which she told her husband that she would die, then her husband said that what was the necessity to die by herself and that he would kill her and by saying so, her husband poured kerosene and lit fire. The deceased stated before P.W.10 that there was quarrel between the deceased and her husband in the evening, for which she told her husband that she would die, then her husband said that what was the necessity to die by herself and that he would kill her and by saying so, her husband poured kerosene and lit fire. In the end, P.W.10 requested the duty doctor/P.W.15 to certify about her state of mind during the period of recording the statement, for which the duty doctor certified that she was conscious, coherent and in fit state of mind throughout the recording of the statement. 18. The contention of the counsel for the Appellant/accused No.1 that the deceased was tutored to give statement against the Appellant is negatived by the version of P.W.10, wherein she specifically deposed that except herself, duty doctor/P.W.15 and duty attendant, nobody were present at the time of recording her statement. Further, nothing has come on record to show that any relative of the deceased was present at the time, when P.W.10/Magistrate recorded the statement of the deceased. 19. Further, P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police deposed in his evidence that on 09.07.2012 at about 15.30 hours, he received information about the incident under Ex.P10 from Government General Hospital, Kurnool to the outpost police station, Kurnool, and as such, he reached the Government General Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P11 in burns ward at 3.40 p.m., wherein the injured/deceased stated that her husband poured kerosene and lit her on fire and that her husband is responsible for her death. P.W.12 took the left thumb impressions of the deceased and reached the police station and registered the case under Ex.P12. 20. As per the evidence on record, it stands established that the statements of victim were not an outcome of threatening or on a figment of imagination. The statements of the deceased made before P.Ws.1 to 3, statement recorded by Magistrate/P.W.10 and the statement recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police/P.W.12 appear to be voluntary and consistent, given in a fit state of mind. 21. The next aspect is with regard to the possibility of the deceased making a statement with 90% burn injuries. As seen from the record, P.W.11/doctor, who conducted autopsy also opined the cause of death to be septicemic shock due to antimortem mixed degree flame burns of 90%. 22. 21. The next aspect is with regard to the possibility of the deceased making a statement with 90% burn injuries. As seen from the record, P.W.11/doctor, who conducted autopsy also opined the cause of death to be septicemic shock due to antimortem mixed degree flame burns of 90%. 22. It is apt to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Pal v. State (Govt of NTC) of Delhi, (2015) 4 SCC 749 wherein one of the points for consideration was 'Can a person with 92% burn injuries be in a condition to give dying declaration?' At para 23 of the above judgment, it was held as follows: "23. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the deceased sustained 100% burn injuries, she could not have made any statement to her brother. In this regard, we may profitably refer to the decision in Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 4 SCC 69 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 810 wherein it has been held that a person suffering 99% burn injuries could be deemed capable enough for the purpose of making a dying declaration. The Court in the said case opined that unless there existed some inherent and apparent defect, the trial court should not have substituted its opinion for that of the doctor. In the light of the facts of the case, the dying declaration was found to be worthy of reliance. 24. In State of M.P. v. Dal Singh, (2013) 14 SCC 159 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 141 , a two-Judge Bench placed reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased who had suffered 100% burn injuries on the ground that the dying declaration was found to be credible." 23. As seen from the dying declaration/Ex.P8 recorded by P.W.10/Magistrate, it is recorded on 09.07.2012 at 12.55 a.m. It is seen from the remarks of the doctor that the declarant namely the deceased is conscious, coherent and in fit state of mind throughout recording the statement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not in a position to make the dying declaration. Nothing has been elicited from the doctor to show that she was not in a position to make the statement. 24. Further the dying declaration before Magistrate and oral dying declarations also strengthen the evidentiary value of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of the deceased before P.W.12. Nothing has been elicited from the doctor to show that she was not in a position to make the statement. 24. Further the dying declaration before Magistrate and oral dying declarations also strengthen the evidentiary value of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of the deceased before P.W.12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahadeo Narayan More v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 573 held that oral reporting of dying declaration is quite consistent with subsequent dying declaration recorded by Magistrate and the duty doctor certified that patient is in conscious state, no infirmity in the assessment of trial court, therefore, dying declaration inspires confidence. Thus, it could be seen that there is no legal impediment to convict the offender on the basis of dying declaration even without corroboration. Special sanctity is attached to dying declaration. The reason is that truth sits on the lips of dying man. However, the deceased has not deviated in her statement made to P.Ws. 1 to 3, P.W.10 and P.W.12 as to how she was set fire and by whom. 25. The deceased in her statement before P.W.12 stated that she was set fire by accused No.1 by pouring kerosene on her. P.W.12 the investigating officer stated that he went to the scene of offence on 09.07.2012 at 7.30 p.m., and found kerosene oil smell coming from the clothes and floor of the house was stained with kerosene, he seized M.O.3/kerosene stove, M.O.4/stove cap, M.O.5/match box, M.O.6/burnt match stick, M.O.7/broken pieces of bottle and M.O.8/burnt shirt. The presence of kerosene stove, match box, match sticks including burnt wearing clothes would lend support to the statement of the deceased that kerosene oil from the stove was poured on deceased and set her on fire. Thus, the statement of deceased inspires confidence and it is free from infirmities. 26. P.W.13 stated that he could not arrest the Appellant/accused No.1, as he was hospitalized due to burns, hence there was delay in arresting accused No.1, as he too sustained burns in the incident. Appellant/accused No.1 was arrested after he was discharged from the hospital. 27. Thus, the statement of deceased inspires confidence and it is free from infirmities. 26. P.W.13 stated that he could not arrest the Appellant/accused No.1, as he was hospitalized due to burns, hence there was delay in arresting accused No.1, as he too sustained burns in the incident. Appellant/accused No.1 was arrested after he was discharged from the hospital. 27. The learned counsel for the Appellant/accused No.1 relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Paparambaka Rosamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1999) 2 ALT(Cri) 345 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that when the dying declaration cannot be accepted by Court to form sole basis of conviction since certificate of doctor was not to the effect that patient was in fit state of mind to make the statement. The said judgment does not apply to the case on hand, as the evidence of P.W.15/duty doctor indicates that deceased was fully conscious, in fit state of mind and capable of making statement. Further it could be seen from the Section 313 Cr.P.C statement of the Appellant/accused No.1 wherein he categorically stated that he went to rescue the deceased and that in the said process, he sustained burns. So, it is not at all in dispute that accused No.1 was very much present in the house of the deceased at the time of incident on 08.07.2012 and sustained burns. The defence of accused No.1 that he went to rescue the deceased, who was burning and at that time he was attending masonry work at public toilets near his home is not supported by any substantial evidence. The same runs contra to the contents of the dying declaration. 28. Having regard to the findings arrived at, we feel that the defence set up by the Appellant/accused No.1 is disbelieved rightly by the trial Court and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the Court below against the Appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC. Hence, the finding of the trial Court is hereby affirmed, finding the Appellant/accused No.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC. In the result, The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Calendar and Judgment in Sessions Case No.159 of 2014, dated 24.07.2015 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool is hereby affirmed. Hence, the finding of the trial Court is hereby affirmed, finding the Appellant/accused No.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC. In the result, The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Calendar and Judgment in Sessions Case No.159 of 2014, dated 24.07.2015 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool is hereby affirmed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any in the Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.