JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. The sole accused, in Sessions Case No.160 of 2012 on the file of learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, is the appellant herein. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, “I.P.C.”] for causing the death of Gajula Sri Devi, by pouring kerosene and setting her fire. 2. Vide Judgment, dated 09.07.2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. Assailing the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal came to be filed. 3. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. P.W.3 a resident of the said area was running a small shop by the side of the hotel of P.Ws.1 and 2. The deceased was given in marriage to one Srinivasa Rao. They were blessed with two children. Disputes arose between the deceased and her husband Srinivasa Rao, as such she left her husband and two children and came to the house of P.W.1. Later, she developed acquaintance with the accused and eloped with the accused to Tirupati, where they got married. After returning to Nagarjuna Sagar, the accused took his wife to his house and started living there with his first wife and children. P.W.1 used to visit the said house now and then to find out the welfare of her daughter. (i) On 09.12.2011, P.W.1 came to know about a quarrel between the first wife of the accused, deceased and the accused. She also came to know about accused beating the deceased, suspecting her fidelity. On the next day morning, P.W.1 was coming home from their hotel and when she reached near the house of the accused, she noticed several people gathered there. She went inside the house and noticed her daughter lying on the cart. Her entire body was burnt. She did not notice the accused in the house, but however, the first wife of the accused was present. She went inside the house and noticed her daughter lying on the cart. Her entire body was burnt. She did not notice the accused in the house, but however, the first wife of the accused was present. Her enquiry from the deceased revealed that the accused beat her on the previous day night on the ground that she received a phone call in the morning and on the next day while she was performing Pooja, the accused suspecting her fidelity, poured kerosene and set her on fire. On seeing the flames on her body, the accused escaped from the place by placing her body on a cart in the house. P.W.1 shifted her to KMNA Hospital, for treatment where the doctors advised P.W.1 to take the injured to Government Hospital, Vijayawada or Guntur. She was shifted to Government Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment. On 12.10.2011 at about 1.30 P.M., P.W.9 received a message from Medical Officer, KMA hospital, pursuant to which, he reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured. Ex.P14 is the statement of the injured. He obtained the signature of the injured and also the attestation of the doctor, who were present there at that time. Basing on the statement, he registered a case in Crime No.116 of 2011 under Section 498-A and 307 I.P.C. and issued Ex.P16-FIR. He again visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured. He then went to the scene of offence and prepared a panchanama of the scene in the presence of P.W.7. Ex.P5 is the said statement. At the scene, he seized M.Os.1 to 4. He searched for the accused, but found him absconding. (ii) P.W.10, who took up investigation from P.W.9, examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. On 21.12.2011 at 8.00 A.M., he received the death intimation from N.T.R. University, Vijayawada pursuant of which he altered the section of law from Section 307 to Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P19 is the death intimation. Ex.P21 is the altered memo. P.W.14-Inspector of Police, who continued with the investigation, proceeded to N.T.R. Health University Hospital, Vijayawada and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. Ex.P11 is the inquest report. After completing the inquest report, he sent the body for Post Mortem examination. Ex.P21 is the altered memo. P.W.14-Inspector of Police, who continued with the investigation, proceeded to N.T.R. Health University Hospital, Vijayawada and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. Ex.P11 is the inquest report. After completing the inquest report, he sent the body for Post Mortem examination. (iii) P.W.13, who was working as Assistant Professor, Department of RFSL Medicine Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P25-Post Mortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to burns and its complications. (iv) On 30.12.2011, P.W.14, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.8 and others and recorded his confessional statement. Ex.P20 is the said statement. On the same day, he sent the accused to the hospital for treatment as he was having burn injuries on his hands. P.W.11, who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, V.P. South, Nagarjuna Sagar, is said to have examined the accused and issued Ex.P22-wound certificate. According to him, he noticed healed superficial burns and the age of the wounds are 20-23 days prior to examination. 4. After collecting all the necessary documents, a Charge Sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.08 of 2012 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him. As the offence is triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala for disposal in accordance with law. 6. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 and M.Os.1 to 4. After the closure 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 the prosecution witnesses to which he denied. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 and M.Os.1 to 4. After the closure 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 the prosecution witnesses to which he denied. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused. Relying upon the dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable, which gets corroboration from the medical evidence and material particulars, coupled with motive for the incident, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant/accused. 8. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for appellant mainly submits that though the deceased was alive for more than 20 days, no effort was made to get her statement recorded by a Magistrate. She would submit that this circumstance alone is sufficient to doubt the prosecution case. She further submits that the Investigating Officer recorded another statement of the deceased, which has not seen the light. She further submits that even accepting the entire case of the prosecution to be true, no offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is made out since the deceased died nearly 23 days after the incident due to complications. It cannot also be said that the accused had an intention to cause the death of the deceased, having regard to the injuries on his hands. 9. Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, opposed the same, contending that a requisition was sent to the Magistrate for recording the Dying Declaration, but he could not record the statement as the deceased was unconscious. Having regard to facts in issue, the statement recorded by the Head Constable which led to registration of a crime cannot be doubted. Coming to intention, he would submit that the accused was absconding for a period of 20 days and one does not know as to when he sustained the burn injuries. In other words, his argument appears to be that the injuries on the accused cannot be correlated to the date of the incident. He further submit that the conduct of the accused in staying away from his wife for a period of 20 days though aware about the incident would definitely indicate that he is the culprit. 10. In other words, his argument appears to be that the injuries on the accused cannot be correlated to the date of the incident. He further submit that the conduct of the accused in staying away from his wife for a period of 20 days though aware about the incident would definitely indicate that he is the culprit. 10. As seen from the record, the prosecution in all examined fourteen witnesses, out of whom P.Ws.4 to 6 did not support the prosecution case and were treated hostile. The witnesses who speak about the incident in question are P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the parents and neighbour of P.W.1. 11. The evidence of P.W.1 would show that the accused though married and having children, married the deceased again in Tirupati without their knowledge. After marriage, they came down to Nagarjuna Sagar and started living in the said house. According to her, on 09.12.2011 she came to know about a quarrel between the accused, his first wife and deceased. On the next day morning at about 10 A.M., while she was returning from her hotel, noticed people gathered at the house of the accused. When she entered the house, she noticed the deceased lying on a cart and her entire body was burnt. She did not find the accused in the house at that time. Immediately, she took her daughter to a local private hospital and on the advice of the doctors, shifted her to Government Hospital, Vijayawada where she lived for nearly fifteen days and then succumbed to the burn injuries. Her evidence also discloses about the oral dying declaration made by the deceased. 12. In the said oral dying declaration, the deceased categorically stated as to how and in what manner the deceased sustained injuries. P.W.1 was cross-examined at length, but nothing useful came to be elicited to discredit the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before P.W.1. The entire cross-examination was with regard to the maintenance case. To a suggestion that Head Constable never visited the hospital for recording the statement of the deceased, was denied. 13. P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1, who in his evidence speaks about the marriage of the deceased with the accused and information received by him from his wife on 10.12.2011 with regard to the manner in which their daughter was killed by the accused. 13. P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1, who in his evidence speaks about the marriage of the deceased with the accused and information received by him from his wife on 10.12.2011 with regard to the manner in which their daughter was killed by the accused. According to him, on receiving the said information, he went to the house of the accused and on seeing, the accused absconded from his house. He called 108 Ambulance and thereafter shifted the injured to a hospital. In the hospital, he enquired her daughter as to how she sustained injuries, to which, she informed that while performing pooja in the pooja room, the accused poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. From the said hospital, the injured was shifted to N.T.R. Health University Hospital where she died while undergoing treatment. P.W.2 was also cross-examined but nothing came to be elicited to discredit the oral dying declaration made before him. The only fact, which could be elicited, was that he met his daughter for the first time after the incident in the private hospital in the Hill colony where she is alleged to have made the oral dying declaration. 14. P.W.9, the Head Constable, who recorded the statement of the injured/deceased. He in his evidence deposed that on 12.10.2011 at 1.30 P.M., he received a telephonic message from Medical Officer, KMA hospital, hill colony. Immediately, he went to the hospital and found the deceased with burn injuries, and then recorded her statement. Ex.P14 is the statement of the deceased. He further deposed that at the time of recording of statement, the deceased was hale and healthy and in a fit state of mind to give statement. Ex.P15 is the endorsement of the duty doctor over the statement. Later, he went to Police Station and registered the statement as a case in Crime No.116 of 2011 under Section 498-A and 307 I.P.C. Ex.P16 is the F.I.R. On the same day at about 3.30 or 3.45 P.M., he again visited the hospital and secured the presence of the injured and recorded her statement. Later, he went to the scene, observed the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.7 and one Gajula Vijaya Lakshmi, seized the M.Os.1 to 4 and Ex.P5-observation report. 15. Later, he went to the scene, observed the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.7 and one Gajula Vijaya Lakshmi, seized the M.Os.1 to 4 and Ex.P5-observation report. 15. This in substance is the evidence on record namely the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the statement of the deceased recorded by P.W.9-Head Constable, which led to registration of a case under Sections 498-A and 307 I.P.C. 16. As stated earlier, the main argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that though the deceased was live till 21.12.2011, no effort was made to get the statement of the deceased recorded by a Magistrate which is sufficient to doubt the prosecution case. The evidence of P.W.10- Inspector of Police would show that an effort was made to get the statement of the deceased recorded by Magistrate, but he could not do so as the deceased was unconscious and was not able to speak by the time he went there. It is elicited by the counsel for the appellant, in the cross-examination of P.W.10-Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagarjuna Sagar Police Station that on 31.12.2011, P.W.10 received an intimation from Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada stating that when he was about to record the statement of the injured, she became unconscious and not able to speak and hence did not record her dying declaration. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant though appeared to be quite impressive at the first blush, but the admissions elicited by learned counsel for the accused himself in the cross-examination of P.W.10 would show that Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada was requisitioned to record the dying declaration, but the injured was unconscious by then and was not able to make a statement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to make any effort to get the statement recorded through a Magistrate. 17. Coming to the incident in question, the evidence of P.W.1 would show that on the previous day i.e., on 09.12.2011, she received the information about a quarrel between the accused, deceased and the first wife of the accused. The oral dying declaration made before P.W.1 at her residence and before P.W.2 while she was in KL Hospital would show that while the deceased was doing pooja, the accused is said to have poured kerosene and set her on fire, suspecting her fidelity. The oral dying declaration made before P.W.1 at her residence and before P.W.2 while she was in KL Hospital would show that while the deceased was doing pooja, the accused is said to have poured kerosene and set her on fire, suspecting her fidelity. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the statement of the deceased recorded by P.W.9, which is placed on record as Ex.P14. In the said statement, which is recorded in Telugu, the deceased categorically stated about the quarrel which took place on 09.12.2011 when somebody called her to her cell phone and thereafter on 10.12.2011 at about 11 A.M., the accused returned home, picked up a quarrel, poured kerosene and set her on fire while she was performing pooja. It is said that as a result of the said flames, the nighty was subjected to flames and she sustained injuries on her hands, stomach and face. When she raised cries, P.Ws.4 and 5 and others came there and shifted her in an Ambulance to the hospital. 18. From the above, it appears that in view of the phone call received by the injured, the accused suspected her fidelity, poured kerosene and set her on fire. The signature of the injured was taken on the said statement and the said statement was also attested by the doctor to the effect that the patient is conscious oriented and responding appropriately during recording of statement. Infact, the said statement was read over to the deceased who stated it to be correct. Since the contents of the statement of the deceased recorded by Head Constable gets corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the argument that the said statement has to be thrown out in the absence of office seal of the doctor on the said statement cannot be accepted, more so, when it gets corroboration from the medical evidence. 19. Meera vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 11 SCC 231 relied upon by the counsel for the accused dealt with a situation where no effort was made by the prosecution to get the dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate. But, as stated earlier, the situation in the case on hand is different. A requisition was sent to the learned Magistrate for recording the statement of the injured at Vijayawada though three days later, and by that time he went there the injured was unconscious. But, as stated earlier, the situation in the case on hand is different. A requisition was sent to the learned Magistrate for recording the statement of the injured at Vijayawada though three days later, and by that time he went there the injured was unconscious. As seen from evidence, the delay in getting the dying declaration recorded through the Magistrate has occurred because the incident took place in Nagarjuna Sagar on 10.12.2011; initially, the treatment was given at KMNA Hospital and from there she was advised to be taken to Government Hospital at Guntur or Vijayawada for better treatment. In that process, the statement of the injured could not have been recorded at Nagarjuna Sagar and immediately at Vijayawada as they were more interested to save the life of the injured. 20. At this stage, a comment has been made that no seal of the doctor, who made the endorsement, is on the dying declaration. But P.W.12, the doctor, who made the said endorsement, categorically deposed that the deceased was brought into the casualty ward and P.W.9 recorded her statement in his presence and that he certified her mental state of mind. It was not even suggested to him that he did not make any endorsement with regard to the health condition of the injured in Ex.P14 statement. Therefore, absence of seal below the signature of the doctor, in the facts, does not invalidate the statement. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that since the accused also sustained injuries and as the death took place nearly 12 days after the incident due to complications, the nature of offence may be scaled down. But, the nature of complications were not elicited. No effort was made by learned counsel for the appellant to elicit any negligence on the part of the doctors in giving treatment, which lead to the death of the injured. But, one fact which requires to be noted is that, even if the death takes place due to complications like septicaemia, the Hon’ble apex Court in Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 1 SCC 22 held that it cannot take the act of the accused out of the contours of the 2nd clause of Section 300. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion, which is as under:- “34. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion, which is as under:- “34. Shri U.R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel then made an alternative argument that the offence would not escalate beyond culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This argument was made on the premise that the burns caused to her did not result in her death during the initial fatal period and that her death happened on account of setting in of some later complications.” 22. In so far as the injuries of the accused are concerned, the evidence on record show after the arrest of the accused on 30.12.2011 i.e., 21 days after the incident, he was sent to a doctor who noticed some healed superficial burns on both the fingers of both the hands of the accused. Merely because, some superficial burn injuries were present on the fingers of the accused, it does not lead to any irresistible conclusion that he made efforts to put off the flames. In fact, it was not even suggested to the doctors that these injuries could have been possible when the accused tried to put off the flames. Further, it was not suggested to any of the witnesses that he made some effort to put off the flames. Even in his Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, the accused has never took such a defence. However, in the oral dying declaration made before P.W.1, the injured/deceased categorically stated that the accused after setting her on fire, placed her on the cart and then left the house. Possibility of he sustaining burns injuries on his hands at that time cannot be ruled out. 23. It is also to be noted that the accused in the said case absconded till 30.12.2011. It may be true that there could be many reasons for the accused to abscond, but his conduct immediately after the incident creates some suspicion, but if he was having no intention to cause her death as projected now, he would have made every effort to put off the flames and take the injured to the hospital. On the other hand, the evidence on record show that P.Ws.4 to 6 though turned hostile were the persons who came there to put off the flames and then it was P.W.2 who arranged for the Ambulance and shifted his daughter to the private hospital. On the other hand, the evidence on record show that P.Ws.4 to 6 though turned hostile were the persons who came there to put off the flames and then it was P.W.2 who arranged for the Ambulance and shifted his daughter to the private hospital. Definitely, much weight would have been given to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant, had the conduct of the accused had been otherwise. 24. Taking into consideration that effort made by the prosecution to get the statement of the injured recorded by Magistrate did not materialize, as she became unconscious by then, the statement recorded by the Head Constable, which was endorsed by the doctor and which gets corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 [oral dying declaration made before them] coupled with the medical evidence, can be believed to hold that the incident in question took place in the manner suggested by the prosecution. 25. From the above facts and circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. 26. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed, confirming the judgment, dated 09.07.2014, in Sessions Case No.160 of 2012 on the file of learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.