JUDGMENT : C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Accused and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The Sole Accused in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, is the Appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 498A of Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’] for causing the death of his wife Usthela Kondamma [‘Deceased’]. By its Judgment, dated 19.01.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the Accused of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 498-A I.P.C., convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Assailing the said conviction and sentence imposed, the present Appeal is preferred. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under : i) PW1 is sister and PW2 is cousin of deceased, while the Accused is husband of the deceased. ii) The marriage between the Accused and deceased took place about nine months prior to the incident. It is said that, the Accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and, as such, he used to harass her. The same was informed by the deceased to her parents, who convinced her to live with him, by adjusting herself. iii) On 08.09.2012 at about 9.00 P.M., PW1 received information about the deceased being admitted in Area Hospital, Kanigiri, with burn injuries caused by her husband [Accused]. PW1 and others went to the Hospital and saw her. On enquiry, the injured informed that, when they returned after closing the bunk, the Accused went out asking her to prepare food. In the meanwhile, there was power cut and, as such, the deceased went to the house of one Raja Rao, who is her uncle and some food was given to her by his daughter. After the power was restored, the Accused came to the house of Raja Rao and asked the deceased to come with him. While returning to their house, the deceased is said to have questioned the Accused as to whether he has completed his affairs. To which, the Accused got angry and after reaching home, questioned her and abused her, apart from beating her with stick. While returning to their house, the deceased is said to have questioned the Accused as to whether he has completed his affairs. To which, the Accused got angry and after reaching home, questioned her and abused her, apart from beating her with stick. While the deceased was weeping, the Accused is said to have poured kerosene and set her on fire. On 09.09.2012 at about 12.15 A.M. the injured was admitted in Area Hospital, Kanigiri. iv) PW9 - the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Kanigiri, provided medical treatment to the injured. He also issued intimation to the Magistrate for the recording dying declaration of the injured. Ex.P4 is the Medical Intimation. He also sent an intimation vide Ex.P5 to PW12 intimating admission of the injured with burn injuries in Hospital. v) On receipt of information from the Area Hospital, Kanigiri, PW12 - the Sub-Inspector of Police, proceeded to Hospital and recorded the statement of injured. Ex.P7 is the statement of the injured recorded by him. Basing on Ex.P7, he registered a case in Crime No. 28 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 I.P.C. Ex.P8 is the original First Information Report submitted to the Court. After registering the case, PW12 left the Police Station and reached Area Hospital, where he recorded the statement of PW1 and others. vi) It is also to be noted that, PW10 who was working as Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla, on receipt of information about the admission of the injured in the Hospital, proceeded to said Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured. Before recording the statement, he took all the precautions including the endorsement of the Doctor. Ex.P6 is the statement of the injured recorded by PW10. vii) PW12 - the Sub-Inspector of Police, continued with the investigation, proceeded to the scene of offence on the next day and prepared observation report of the scene, which is placed on record as Ex.P1. He also seized M.Os. 1 to 5 under Ex.P1, apart from taking photographs, which are marked as Ex.P9 to Ex.P19. Thereafter, he prepared rough sketches of scene of offence, which are marked as Ex.P21 and Ex.P22. On 27.09.2012, he received death intimation of the injured under Ex.P23. Basing on the death intimation, he altered the section of law from 498A and 307 I.P.C. to Sections 302 and 498A I.P.C. Ex.P24 is the altered memo. Thereafter, he prepared rough sketches of scene of offence, which are marked as Ex.P21 and Ex.P22. On 27.09.2012, he received death intimation of the injured under Ex.P23. Basing on the death intimation, he altered the section of law from 498A and 307 I.P.C. to Sections 302 and 498A I.P.C. Ex.P24 is the altered memo. viii) PW13 - Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, proceeded to the Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body on 28.09.2012 in the presence of PW8. During inquest, he examined the family members of the deceased. After completing the inquest proceedings, he sent the body for post-mortem examination, where, PW7 - Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS, Ongole, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P3 - post-mortem examination report. According to him, the cause of death is due to septicaemia, due to complication of burns. After affecting arrest of Accused on 03.10.2012 and after collecting all the necessary documents, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 2 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri. 4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the same was committed to Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charge as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused, to which, the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P28, beside marking M.Os.1 to M.O.5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied, however, no evidence was adduced in support of his plea. 6. Relying upon the two dying declarations, coupled with oral dying declaration made before PW3, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Against this conviction, the present Appeal is filed. 7. Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Accused, mainly submits that, there is absolutely no legal evidence available on record to connect the Accused with the crime. 7. Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Accused, mainly submits that, there is absolutely no legal evidence available on record to connect the Accused with the crime. He further submits that, the two dying declarations, which are made the basis to connect the Accused with the crime, cannot be relied upon as they are an outcome of the tutoring. In any event, he would contend that, the incident in question took place in a heat of passion and, as such, ingredients constituting an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. are not made out. He further submits that, since the death took place 15 days after the incident and due to septicaemia, due to complication of burns, pleads for sacling down of the offence. 8. The same is opposed by Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, contending that, there are no reasons to disbelieve the two dying declarations and more particularly the one recorded by the Magistrate, who was examined as PW10. Apart from that, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that, merely because the injured died 15 days after the incident, it does not give benefit of alteration of section of law. He took us through Explanation-2 to Section 299 of I.P.C. to show that, nature of offence cannot be altered merely because the death was long after the incident. In view of the above, he would submit that the conviction and sentence imposed requires no interference. 9. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond doubt for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.? 10. In Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2010 AIR 3477, the Apex Court, after noting earlier judgments, has laid the following guidelines with regard to admissibility of the dying declaration:- i. Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court. ii. The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. iii. Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. iv. ii. The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. iii. Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. iv. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. v. Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. vi. A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction. vii. Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. viii. Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. ix. When the eyewitness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail. x. If after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.” 11. It is to be noted here that, there are three dying declarations on record. The oral dying declaration is said to have been made before PW1, when she along with one Raja Rao, proceeded to the Hospital. The second dying declaration is the statement of the injured recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police [PW12], which led to registration of First Information Report [Ex.P8], and the third dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate, who was examined as PW10. 12. Insofar as the dying declaration recorded by PW10, it is to be noted that, before recording the statement of the injured, an endorsement of the Doctor, as to the mental condition of the injured, was taken and only after a certificate is given with regard to consciousness of the injured, the statement was recorded. 12. Insofar as the dying declaration recorded by PW10, it is to be noted that, before recording the statement of the injured, an endorsement of the Doctor, as to the mental condition of the injured, was taken and only after a certificate is given with regard to consciousness of the injured, the statement was recorded. The learned Counsel for the Appellant is not in a position to point out any discrepancies in the statement recorded by PW12. 13. It would be appropriate to refer to the two statements. In the first statement, recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police [PW12], the deceased categorically stated that, on the fateful day, at about 8.00 P.M. she along with her husband [Accused] returned home after closing bunk. Her husband while leaving the home, asked her to prepare meals. When she went out to prepare chutney, there was a power cut and, as such, she went to the house of her uncle, by name, Raja Rao. The daughter of Raja Rao, gave some food to her to eat. She sat there for some time and on restoration of power, her husband came to the said house and asked her to come to the house. On the way, she is said to have questioned her husband whether his affairs are over. Then the Accused grew wild against her. After reaching home, her husband is said to have abused her in vulgar language and beat her with a stick. While she was weeping, the Accused poured kerosene and set her on fire. The same version is spoken to by the deceased when her statement was recorded by the Magistrate [PW10] under Ex.P6. As seen from the record, Ex.P6 was recorded on 09.09.2012 between 5.50 A.M. to 6.20 A.M., while, Ex.P7 is said to have been recorded on the intervening night of 8th/9th September, 2012 at 1.00 A.M. There is no disparity or discrepancy in the contents of the two statements recorded. Even, in the earlier dying declaration, made by the deceased before PW1, the deceased informed that the Accused poured kerosene and set her on fire. The same version was spoken to by the witnesses. Therefore, the version of PW1 to PW3, coupled with Ex.P7 and Ex.P6, amply establishes the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence. 14. At this stage, Sri. The same version was spoken to by the witnesses. Therefore, the version of PW1 to PW3, coupled with Ex.P7 and Ex.P6, amply establishes the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence. 14. At this stage, Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Accused, would submit that, even accepting the contents of the dying declarations as true, no offence under Section 302 I.P.C., is made out. According to him, the incident took place in a heat of passion and, as such, requests for scaling down of the offence. 15. We are not in agreement with the plea taken by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, for more than one reason. The material on record show that, on the way to the house, when the deceased questioned the accused whether all his affairs are over, the accused is said to have got angry, abused her and after reaching home, beat her with stick, abused her in filthy language and when she was weeping, poured kerosene and set her on fire. Therefore, the question of incident happened in a heat of passion or due to any dispute prior to the incident, cannot be accepted. 16. The fact that the incident took place involving complexity of the Accused is also spoken to by PW3 and PW4, who in their evidence categorically deposed about hearing cries of the deceased/injured on 08.09.2012 at 8.00 P.M. Thereafter, all of them rushed to the house of the Accused, where they noticed the injured in flames and extinguished the fire by covering her with the bed-sheets in the house of the Accused. Their evidence categorically discloses the presence of the Accused in the house at that time. Later on, PW3 and PW4 shifted the injured in an Auto to the Government Hospital, Kanigiri, and from there to Government Hospital, Ongole. If really it was a case of accidental death or it was an incident or in a heat of passion or anger, the conduct of the Accused, in our view, would have been totally different. As stated earlier, PW3 and PW4 rushed to the house of the Accused on hearing the cries of the deceased/injured and put of flames by using bed-sheets, but none of the witnesses speak about the involvement of the accused in trying to put of the flames on the deceased. This conduct speaks volumes about the incident in question. As stated earlier, PW3 and PW4 rushed to the house of the Accused on hearing the cries of the deceased/injured and put of flames by using bed-sheets, but none of the witnesses speak about the involvement of the accused in trying to put of the flames on the deceased. This conduct speaks volumes about the incident in question. 17. The last straw in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Accused is that, death took place 15 days after the incident and the said death was due to septicaemia, due to complication of burns, benefit of nature of offence should be extended. 18. Further, Explanation II to Section 299 of I.P.C. clarifies the legal position, which reads as under: “299. Culpable homicide.—Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. a) xxx xxx xxxx b) xxx xxx xxxx c) xxx xxx xxxx Explanation 1. -------- Explanation 2.—Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. 19. It is not in dispute that, deceased died due to septicaemia as a result of complications of burns. But, there is no evidence on record to show that, there was any negligence or any improper treatment given to the deceased. It was suggested to PW9, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Kanigiri, who treated the injured that proper treatment was not given to the injured till she was admitted in Area Hospital, Kanigiri. But the same was denied by him. Infact, immediately after the incident, the injured was taken to Area Hospital at Kanigiri, where treatment, as required, was provided. It would be appropriate to extract the suggestions and answers elicited through PW9, which is as under: “It is not true to suggest that we did not give proper treatment to the victim till she was admitted in Area Hospital, Kanigiri”. 20. As seen from the evidence-in-chief of this witness, on 09.09.2012 at about 12.15 A.M., the deceased was admitted in Area Hospital, Kanigiri, with burn injuries. 20. As seen from the evidence-in-chief of this witness, on 09.09.2012 at about 12.15 A.M., the deceased was admitted in Area Hospital, Kanigiri, with burn injuries. He provided medical treatment for her; apart from issuing intimations to all concerned. So, the question of not providing treatment from the time of incident till admission cannot be accepted. In-fact, immediately after the incident, she was taken to the Hospital with injuries. Therefore, the argument that, no proper treatment was given while the injured was taking treatment in the Hospital, in our view, cannot be accepted. 21. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of Explanation 2 to Section 299 I.P.C., we are of the view that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court rightly convicted the appellant. 22. In the result the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the Judgment, dated 19.01.2015, in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2013 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole. 23. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.