JUDGMENT : Saroj Yadav, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 13/14.08.2013 passed by Special Judge (E.C.) Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Rae Bareli in Sessions Trial No.116 of 2007 (State Vs. Sanjay Singh) arising out of Crime No.31 of 2007 under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act (in short D.P. Act). Whereby the convict/appellant has been held guilty and sentenced under Section 498A, 302 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station Shivgarh, District Rae Bareli. The convict has been awarded the following sentences :- Sl. No. Sections Sentences awarded 1. Under section 498-A I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment of three years coupled with a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment. 2. Under section 302 I.P.C. Life imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.20,000/-and in default of payment of fine, two years additional imprisonment. 3. Under section 4 of D.P. Act. Rigorous imprisonment of two years coupled with a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment. 2. The facts in short, necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:- (i) A First Information Report (in short FIR) was registered at Case Crime No.31 of 2007, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 307 of I.P.C. and Section ¾ of D.P. Act, Police Station Shivgarh, District Rae Bareli, on the basis of a the written report submitted by the complainant Ajeet Pratap Singh. In the written report it was narrated that elder sister of the complainant Manju Singh was married to Sanjay Singh about 10 years ahead. His brother-in-law used to harass and torture his sister soon after the marriage and used to say that her parents had not given sufficient dowry and they just show that they were rich people. Sanjay Singh used to ask his sister to bring a buffalo and a motorcycle, otherwise he will not let her live with peace. One son was born to his sister out of this wedlock. Sanjay Singh started to live separately in a house situated adjacent to his parents. After this he started torturing and harassing his sister more and pressurized her to bring a buffalo and a motorcycle. One son was born to his sister out of this wedlock. Sanjay Singh started to live separately in a house situated adjacent to his parents. After this he started torturing and harassing his sister more and pressurized her to bring a buffalo and a motorcycle. When his sister refused to accede to the demands he frequently used to beat and torture her. Due to this harassment and torture his sister came to her parental house, about 5 months before and started to live there. About one month ahead, brother of her father-in-law died, therefore, his sister went to his matrimonial home Jagatpur. When she was coming back, her mother-in-law and father-in-law asked her to stay there and assured that now Sanjay Singh has reformed himself. On this she stayed there and started to live with Sanjay Singh. (ii) On 25.01.2007 he received a phone call from village Ahasan Jagatpur that Sanjay Singh has set ablaze Manju after pouring Kerosene oil. On this the complainant, his younger brother Sonu Singh, cousin Santosh and many other people of the village went to village Ahasan Jagatpur and found that his sister was badly burnt. The smell of kerosene oil was coming out from her body. His sister Manju told him that Sanjay Singh has set her ablaze after beating and dousing with kerosene oil. His sister was being carried by Sonu Singh and Santosh Singh to hospital in Bachhrawa. The condition of his sister was very serious. (iii) After registration of the FIR investigation started. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by Mr. Piyush Srivastava, 'Naib Tehsildar' in the hospital where the deceased was under treatment. The deceased died during treatment on 29.01.2007 in the hospital. The written information of death was given by the complainant at the concerned police station (Exhibit Ka-18). After investigation chargesheet was submitted in the Court concerned against the convict/appellant under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 302 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance on the chargesheet and committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court framed charges under sections 498A, 302 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. The convict/appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. (iv) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined ten witnesses in toto, which are as under:- 1. P.W.1 Sonu Singh brother of the deceased. The Sessions Court framed charges under sections 498A, 302 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. The convict/appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. (iv) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined ten witnesses in toto, which are as under:- 1. P.W.1 Sonu Singh brother of the deceased. 2. P.W.2 Mabood Khan an independent witness. 3. P.W.3 Santosh Singh cousin brother of the deceased. 4. P.W.4 Dr. Y.N. Tiwari, who conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased Manju Singh. 5. P.W.5 Smt. Kirti Singh a witness from the family of accused. 6. P.W.6 Sub Inspector Arvind Mohan Jaiswal, who investigated the matter initially. 7. P.W.7 Sub-Inspector M. S. Khan who conducted inquest of the dead body and prepared 'Panchayatnama' and relevant papers and sent the dead body for postmortem. 8. P.W.8 Mr. Piyush Srivastava, 'Naib Tehsildar', who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. 9. P.W.9 Sub-Inspector Mr. R.P. Singh who took over the investigation from the I.O. Arvind Mohan Jaiswal. 10. P.W.10 Raja Ram Singh, the uncle of the deceased who scribed the written report upon the dictation of the complainant Ajeet Singh. (v) Apart from the above oral evidence, documentary evidence has also been proved by the prosecution, which are as under:- 1. Exhibit Ka-1 postmortem report. 2. Exhibit Ka-2 bed head ticket. 3. Exhibit Ka-3 discharge slip. 4. Exhibit Ka-4 prescription of Naveen Prathmik Swasthya Kendra, Bachhrawa, Rae Bareli, of deceased. 5. Exhibit Ka-5 recovery memo of the recover of burnt sari, blouse etc. from the spot. 6. Exhibit Ka-6 recovery memo of taking into custody half burnt sweater and ash. 7. Exhibit Ka-7 Site plan of the place of occurrence. 8. Exhibit Ka-8 carbon copy of concerned G.D., whereby the case was altered under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 9. Exhibit Ka-9 Chick FIR. 10. Exhibit Ka-10 concerned G.D. 11. Exhibit Ka-11 'Panchayatnama'. 12. Exhibit Ka-12 Police Form No.13 13. Exhibit Ka-13 Police Form No.379. 14. Exhibit Ka-14 letter to C.M.O. for conducting postmortem. 15. Exhibit Ka-15 dying declaration. 16. Exhibit Ka-16 chargesheet. 17. Exhibit Ka-17 written report. 18. Exhibit Ka-18 information of the death of the deceased. Exhibit Ka-9 Chick FIR. 10. Exhibit Ka-10 concerned G.D. 11. Exhibit Ka-11 'Panchayatnama'. 12. Exhibit Ka-12 Police Form No.13 13. Exhibit Ka-13 Police Form No.379. 14. Exhibit Ka-14 letter to C.M.O. for conducting postmortem. 15. Exhibit Ka-15 dying declaration. 16. Exhibit Ka-16 chargesheet. 17. Exhibit Ka-17 written report. 18. Exhibit Ka-18 information of the death of the deceased. (vi) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of convict/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), wherein he denied all the facts and circumstances and stated that the deceased was of blunt mind, she herself set her ablaze. He has further stated that the deceased herself set her ablaze. He was not at the spot. Whatever allegations have been made against him are false. His son Golu lives with him, previously Golu used to live with Manju, the deceased in her parental home, but now the relatives of Manju sent back Golu to him and asked his mother to get him convicted. No defence witness was produced by the convict/appellant, though opportunity was given by the trial court. (vii) After hearing the arguments of both the sides and analyzing the evidence available on record, the learned lower court relied upon the dying declaration made by the deceased in the hospital where she was admitted for treatment after being burnt by the convict/appellant. The dying-declaration was recorded by the 'Naib Tehsildar' on the same day, on which incident occurred. The dying declaration so made was corroborated by the evidence of witnesses of facts as well as by evidence of formal witnesses. Medical evidence is consistent with the dying declaration made by the deceased. The learned trial court did not find any reason to disbelieve the dying declaration made by the deceased. (viii) P.W.10 Raja Ram Singh, uncle of the deceased who ascribed the written report, dictated by the brother of the deceased, Ajeet Singh. This witness has proved the written report as Exhibit Ka-17. It is noteworthy that Ajeet Singh the complainant had died during the pendency of the case. This witness has also proved all the facts stated in the written report, as he accompanied the complainant to the place of incident when the information was received in his village about the unfortunate incident of burning of the deceased. It is noteworthy that Ajeet Singh the complainant had died during the pendency of the case. This witness has also proved all the facts stated in the written report, as he accompanied the complainant to the place of incident when the information was received in his village about the unfortunate incident of burning of the deceased. This witness has also proved the recovery of the articles by the Investigating Officer from the place of the incident. (ix) The learned trial court also relied upon the examination-in-chief of P.W.1, the another brother of deceased who in the cross-examination has turned hostile. On the basis of evidence available on record the learned trial court concluded that prosecution has proved the charges framed against the convict/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased was tortured and subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of a buffalo and a motorcycle as dowry and ultimately she was burnt alive dowsing with kerosene oil on 25.01.2007 and she died of burn injuries during treatment. (x) Learned trial court also found the convict/appellant guilty under Section 498-A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act alongwith Section 302 of the I.P.C. and the trial court sentenced the convict/appellant to imprisonment as noted above in paragraph No.1. (xi) Being aggrieved of this conviction and sentence the convict/appellant preferred this appeal. 3. Heard Shri Jaikaran, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Smiti Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in the right preservative and erroneously held the convict/appellant guilty and sentenced him. All the allegations made in the FIR regarding demand of dowry or setting ablaze the deceased are false. The son of the deceased was allegedly present at the time of incident, but he has not been examined by the prosecution. The mother-in-law of the deceased allegedly carried her for the treatment to the hospital, but she has not been examined. The dying declaration of the deceased was manipulated and written on the behest of the complainant. The case was registered initially under Section 307 of I.P.C., but subsequently converted under Section 302 of I.P.C. after the death of the deceased. The deceased died due to septicemia which developed for want of proper treatment. The dying declaration of the deceased was manipulated and written on the behest of the complainant. The case was registered initially under Section 307 of I.P.C., but subsequently converted under Section 302 of I.P.C. after the death of the deceased. The deceased died due to septicemia which developed for want of proper treatment. Hence the offence may not travel beyond the offence punishable under Section 304 of I.P.C. Hence this conviction should be converted to Section 304 from Section 302 of I.P.C. and the convict/appellant should be sentenced to the period already undergone and be released. 5. Contrary to it learned A.G.A. submitted that there is sufficient evidence available on record for convicting the convict/appellant for the offence for which he has been convicted and punished. She submitted that the dying declaration of the deceased is very natural and trustworthy as she has implicated only the wrong doer and none-else. The dying declaration has been recorded by the 'Naib Tehsildar' on the day of incident itself. There was no chance for tutoring or manipulating. 6. P.W. 10 Raja Ram has proved the written report and also the fact that deceased told him before the complainant and other persons who were present there that she was burnt by Sanjay Singh, her husband. This witness has also proved the fact that she was being tortured and harassed by the convict/appellant for demand of a Buffalo and a Motorcycle. 7. P.W.1 though turned hostile in the cross-examination, but in examination-in-chief he has fully supported all the facts written in the F.I.R. P.W.3 Santosh Singh, cousin brother of the deceased has also supported very well the case of the prosecution. Ms. Kirti Singh P.W.5 who is the aunt of Sanjay Singh, the convict, has also stated that she saw Manju in burnt condition as she came out of her house in a burning state. She has also stated that the deceased Manju came to his maternal home before 15 days of the incident, after hearing the news of the death of her (P.W.5's) husband. The deceased died due to burn injuries as has been noted in the postmortem report. Hence there is no error or discrepancy in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. 8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the original record as well as the record of the appeal. The deceased died due to burn injuries as has been noted in the postmortem report. Hence there is no error or discrepancy in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. 8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the original record as well as the record of the appeal. The FIR which was registered on the basis of written report Exhibit Ka-17. The complainant (now dead) has narrated that his real elder sister Manju Singh was married to Sanjay Singh, ten years back. Sanjay Singh used to torture and beat his sister for demand of one buffalo and a motorcycle. Due to unbearable torture his sister came to his parental house five months before the incident, but as the brother of father-in-law of Manju namely Rajendra Singh died, so his sister Manju went there to his matrimonial home. When she was coming back to his parental house her in-laws asked him to stay there and told that Sanjay Singh has reformed himself. On this assurance, she stayed there. On 25.01.2007 at about 08:00 AM he received telephonic call that Sanjay Singh firstly thrashed Manju Singh and thereafter set her ablaze after dowsing with kerosene oil. Unfortunately the complainant died during the pendency of the trial and his statement could not be recorded in the trial court. But the report has very well been proved by P.W.10 Raja Ram Singh who is the uncle of the deceased. He has stated before the trial court that report was scribed by him upon the dictation made by Ajeet Singh and Ajeet Singh after hearing the same wrote his name and address on the same. Whatever was dictated by Ajeet Singh he wrote in the written report. He further stated that he accompanied Ajeet Singh after getting the news of Manju being burnt by Sanjay Singh on 25.01.2007. When he reached at Ahasan Jagatpur he found Manju seriously burnt and asked her about the incident then she told that Sanjay Singh firstly thrashed her, thereafter set her ablaze after dowsing with kerosene oil. This witness has also stated that whenever Manju used to come to her parental house she used to tell that Sanjay Singh tortured and harassed her for one buffalo and a motorcycle. This witness has also stated that whenever Manju used to come to her parental house she used to tell that Sanjay Singh tortured and harassed her for one buffalo and a motorcycle. This witness has also stated that his statement was also recorded by the Investigating Officer and he was also a witness to the recovery of articles from the place of incident. This witness recognized her signatures on recovery memos Exhibits Nos. Ka 5 & 6. 9. P.W.3 Santosh Singh, who is the cousin brother of the deceased has also supported very well the prosecution story. He also accompanied the complainant to the maternal house of the deceased where the incident occurred, after getting the news of the incident. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the information received he alongwith Ajeet Singh, Sonu Singh and Raja Ram Singh went to the maternal home of Manju Singh and found that mother of Sanjay Singh (convict) was taking Manju in a burnt condition on a Tanga, they all three stopped their motorcycle and asked Manju about the incident then she told that Sanjay Singh firstly beat her and thereafter set her ablaze after dowsing with kerosene oil. Manju was seriously burnt and telling about the incident weepingly. Thereafter they took Manju to Naveen Prathmik Swastha Kendra, Bachhrawa, Rae Bareli from where she was referred to District Hospital for treatment and she died after three or four days. Thus this witness has also supported the prosecution case to the extent that Manju Singh the deceased told Ajeet Singh, Sonu Singh and Raja Ram Singh that she was beaten and burnt by convict Sanjay Singh. 10. Sonu Singh, P.W.1 is the real brother of the deceased Manju Singh. He in his examination-in-chief fully supported the prosecution case, but cross-examination was not made on the day of examination-in-chief. As the defence counsel moved the adjournment application on the date on which examination-in-chief was recorded. The examination-in-chief of this witness was recorded on 12.06.2008 and the cross-examination was made by the defence on 20.07.2009 after a period of more than a year. In cross-examination so made, this witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version and whatever stated by him in his examination-in-chief. Therefore, with the permission of the Court Additional District Government Counsel examined the witness. The most important witness of this case is P.W.8 Mr. In cross-examination so made, this witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version and whatever stated by him in his examination-in-chief. Therefore, with the permission of the Court Additional District Government Counsel examined the witness. The most important witness of this case is P.W.8 Mr. Piyush Srivastava, 'Naib Tehsildar', who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. The dying declaration so recorded is Exhibit Ka-15 on the record which reads as under:- ^^vkt fnuk¡d 25@01@07 dks izkIRk lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij ftyk vLirky jk;cjsyh esa Jherh eatw flag iRuh lat; flag fu- vlgutxriqj Fkkuk f'koxढ+ ftyk jk;cjsyh ds e`R;q iwoZ c;ku izkIr fd;k] tks fuEu izdkj gS%& eS eatw flag vkt lqcg vius ?kj ij Fkh] ml le; esjs ifr ?kj ij Fks] mUgksuas igys eq>ls yM+kbZ dh] vkSj yM+us ds ckn eq>s ekjk ihVk vkSj ekjihV dj eq> ij feVVh dk rsy Mkydj vkx yxk nh vkSj ?kj ls Hkkx x;sA esjs ifr dk uke lat; flag iq= Hkxoku c['k flag fu- xkze vlgutxriqj gSA esjs ifjokj esa lkla] llqj esjs lkFk jgrs gSA eq>s muls dksbZ f'kdk;r ugh gSA esjh f'kdk;r esjs ifr ls gS] mlus gh eq>s tyk;k gSA eq>s esjh lkl o xkWo okyks us cpk;k vkSj ;gkW vLirky yk;sA^^ 11. This witness PW-8 has stated that on 25.01.2007 he was posted as 'Naib Tehsildar' (West) in Tehsil Sadar, Rae Bareli. On that date, on the direction of the then S.D.M. Sadar he went to record the dying declaration of Smt. Manju Singh wife of Sanjay Singh, resident of Ahasan Jagatpur, Police Station Shivgarh, District Rae Bareli. Before starting to record the statement of Manju Singh, Dr. Rajendra Sharma certified that Manju Singh is in the state of giving statement, thereafter he recorded the statement of Manju Singh. Manju Singh stated that her husband Sanjay Singh scuffled with her and beat her, thereafter set her ablaze after dousing with kerosene oil and ran away from the house. Manju Singh also stated that she has no complaint against her mother-in-law. She has further stated that she was burnt by her husband and her mother-in-law and other people of the village saved her and carried to hospital. Manju Singh also stated that she has no complaint against her mother-in-law. She has further stated that she was burnt by her husband and her mother-in-law and other people of the village saved her and carried to hospital. This witness has further stated that after recording of the statement he read over the same to Manju Singh and Manju Singh affixed her thumb impression of right hand on the statement and this witness has also signed on that. This witness has further stated that doctor has given fitness certificate after recording of the statement also, the doctor signed on the statement and put the seal of the hospital on the same. This witness has proved the dying declaration written in his handwriting and under his signature as Exhibit Ka-15. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence counsel, but nothing adverse could be brought out in his statement. There is nothing on the record to show that the dying declaration of the deceased was manipulated or given at the behest of the complainant. In the cross-examination this witness has stated that among the attendants who were present near Manju Singh when he reached, her mother-in-law was also there. He ousted all the attendants from the room before recording of the statement of Manju Singh. In the presence of the mother of the convict it was not possible to tutor Manju Singh to give statement against the convict Sanjay Singh. 12. The dying declaration of the deceased is very natural, cogent, trustworthy with ring of truth as she has given a very precise statement against the person who set her ablaze. He has not implicated any other in-laws in the crime. This dying declaration has been corroborated by the statement of P.W.10, P.W3 and also by statement of P.W.1. 13. The Investigating Officer P.W.6 Sub-Inspector Arvind Mohan Jaiswal has also stated that when he recorded the statement of the deceased in the hospital she has stated that her husband used to ask for a buffalo and a motorcycle as dowry and when she opposed he used to beat her and on the day of incident at about 7:00 AM Sanjay Singh beat her and set her ablaze dousing with kerosene oil. Hence, there is no reason on the record to doubt the veracity or truthfulness of the dying declaration of the deceased Manju Singh. 14. Hence, there is no reason on the record to doubt the veracity or truthfulness of the dying declaration of the deceased Manju Singh. 14. Learned counsel for the convict/appellant argued that the trial court has taken into consideration the statements of hostile witnesses also, which is not justified. But this argument of the defence does not carry any weight because the dying declaration of the deceased is very well being supported by P.W.3 and P.W.10. Further more, the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be thrown out, completely. It is settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto, whatever is found in his/her evidence in corroboration of the other evidence, the court can take into consideration that part of the evidence of that witness. 15. In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court very recently in the case of Rajesh Yadav and another Vs. Sate of U.P. 2022 SCC Online SC 150 held as under:- "21. The expression “hostile witness” does not find a place in the Indian Evidence Act. It is coined to mean testimony of a witness turning to depose in favour of the opposite party. We must bear it in mind that a witness may depose in favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving through his chief examination, while later on change his view in favour of the opposite side. Similarly, there would be cases where a witness does not support the case of the party starting from chief examination itself. This classification has to be borne in mind by the Court. With respect to the first category, the Court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief examination could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become complete after the cross examination. Once evidence is completed, the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact. Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it happened can also be considered, particularly in a situation where the chief examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the court. Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it happened can also be considered, particularly in a situation where the chief examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the court. It is well within the powers of the court to make an assessment, being a matter before it and come to the correct conclusion. 22. On the law laid down in dealing with the testimony of a witness over an issue, we would like to place reliance on the decision of this Court in C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567 : “81. It is settled legal proposition that: “6. … the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.” (Vide Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 389 , Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233 , Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30 and Khujji v. State of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627 , SCC p. 635, para 6.) 82. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra [ (1996) 10 SCC 360 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1278] this Court held that (at SCC p. 363, para 7) evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [ (2002) 7 SCC 543 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 112], Gagan Kanojia v. State of Punjab [(2006) 13 SCC 516: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 109], Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2006) 2 SCC 450 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 661], Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh [ (2007) 13 SCC 360 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 188] and Subbu Singh v. State [ (2009) 6 SCC 462 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1106]. 83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. 84. In the instant case, some of the material witnesses i.e. B. Kamal (PW 86) and R. Maruthu (PW 51) turned hostile. Their evidence has been taken into consideration by the courts below strictly in accordance with law. Some omissions, improvements in the evidence of the PWs have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, but we find them to be very trivial in nature. 85. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution's witness. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution's witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses.” Vide Sohrab v. State of M.P., [(1972] 3 SCC 751 : (1972) SCC (Cri) 819 : AIR 1972 SC 2020 ], State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, [ (1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 105], Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, [ (1983) 3 SCC 217 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 728 : AIR 1983 SC 753 ], State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, [ (2007) 12 SCC 381 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 411], Prithu v. State of H.P., [(2009) 11 SCC 585 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1502], State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar, [ (2009) 9 SCC 626 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 88] and State v. Saravanan, [ (2008) 17 SCC 587 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 580]." 16. The argument of the learned counsel that the son and mother-in-law of the deceased who were allegedly present at the time of incident have not been examined by the prosecution which creates doubt, is not tenable at all because it is a choice of the prosecution to whom it wants to produce to prove its case. The case of the prosecution has very well been proved by the witnesses of fact as well as by the witness who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. 17. Learned counsel for the convict/appellant very vehemently argued that deceased was not treated medically well, therefore she died, as she was not so badly burnt as to die. So the offence can travel only upto the offence punishable under Section 304 of I.P.C. instead of Section 302 of I.P.C.. This argument of the defence counsel is also of no value. The medical-examination report, Exhibit Ka-4 where the deceased was first examined in a burnt condition, it has been noted that superficial to deep burn was found on the body and she was found 55 to 65 percent burnt and referred to District Hospital for treatment. This argument of the defence counsel is also of no value. The medical-examination report, Exhibit Ka-4 where the deceased was first examined in a burnt condition, it has been noted that superficial to deep burn was found on the body and she was found 55 to 65 percent burnt and referred to District Hospital for treatment. In Exhibit Ka-2 which is 'bed-head-ticket' of the deceased issued by Rana Beni Madhav District Hospital Rae Bareli it has been noted that 55 to 65 percent burn injuries were present on the body of the victim. 18. In the postmortem report following ante-mortem injuries were found :- "Superficial to deep skin burn at place over scalp, forehead, face, neck and interior and posterior of Chest front and back, upper part of abdomen front and back both upper limbs. Line of redness present at place" The deceased died in the hospital during the treatment after four days, in the hospital, so it cannot be said the offence travels only upto the offence punishable under Section 304 instead of Section 302 of I.P.C.. Hence this contention of the learned counsel for the defence has no force. In the postmortem report it has also been noted by the autopsy surgeon that deceased died "as a result of ante-mortem burn leading to septicemia and shock." Hence the evidence available on record is sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the convict/appellant and the learned trial court has rightly held him guilty and sentenced him for the offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. There appears no ground and reason for interference in the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. 19. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly. 20. The convict/appellant is already in jail. He shall serve the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. Let the original record received be sent back along with copy of this judgment to the trial court for information and necessary action.