Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1066 (AP)

Shaik Nizamuddin v. State of A. P.

2023-07-13

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C No.153 of 2014 on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 302 IPC. He was not found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and he was acquitted of the said charges. However, he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC of committing murder of the deceased, who is his wife. He was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the instant Appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the legal validity of the said judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Facts of the prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows: 3. The deceased is the legally wedded wife of the accused. Their marriage was solemnized about nine years prior to her death. It is stated that they have lived happily for some time and thereafter the accused having been addicted to consuming alcohol started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally demanding additional dowry from her and also demanding her to give money for the purpose of consuming alcohol. Even though the parents of the deceased used to give money to him on some occasions, he continued to harass the deceased. It is stated that as there was no change in his conduct and attitude, the parents of the deceased brought both the accused and the deceased to Tadipatri where the parents of the deceased are living. The deceased and the accused started living in Tadipatri and used to attend the work in Ramanath Slab Polishing Factory. They have been residing in a room provided in the said factory. However, even after they were brought to Tadipatri, it is stated that there is no change in the attitude of the accused and he continued to harass the deceased physically and mentally. 4. They have been residing in a room provided in the said factory. However, even after they were brought to Tadipatri, it is stated that there is no change in the attitude of the accused and he continued to harass the deceased physically and mentally. 4. While so, on 14.10.2013, at about 02.00 p.m. in the afternoon, the accused demanded money from the deceased for the purpose of consuming alcohol. There was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased at that time and the deceased stated that if he continues to harass her like that, that she would die. Immediately the accused stating that both of them would together die, has brought kerosene and poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. When she was in flames, he tried to extinguish the same by pouring water and he also sustained burn injuries at that time and thereafter he ran away and went away from the house. The deceased, who was in flames, raised cries and on hearing the same, the neighbors of the house including P.W.3 came to the house of the accused and they have extinguished the flames on her. After knowing about the incident, the parents of the deceased reached the house. They have taken the deceased to the Government Hospital of Tadipatri. The duty Doctor informed the police that the deceased was admitted with burn injuries in the Hospital. P.W.8, who is the Head Constable of Tadipatri Police Station, immediately reached the Hospital and found the deceased with burn injuries. He recorded her statement. 5. The deceased stated before P.W.8 that the accused is addicted to consuming alcohol and used to beat her and harass her physically and on that day i.e., on 14.10.2013 at about 02.00 p.m., the accused as usual demanded money from her for the purpose of consuming alcohol and beat her and when she stated the if he continues to harass her in such a manner that she would die that the accused stating that both of them would together die, brought kerosene and poured on her and set her ablaze with a match-stick and thereafter he tried to extinguish the flames by pouring water and he ran away from the house and that the neighbours came and took her to the Hospital. 6. 6. P.W.8 registered the said report of the deceased as a case in Crime No.201 of 2013 of Tadipatri Town Police Station initially for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC. Ex.P.7 is the said statement of the deceased recorded by the Head Constable, who is P.W.8. The duty Doctor certified that the deceased was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give statement when P.W.8 recorded Ex.P.7 statement. The said endorsement made by the Doctor is Ex.P.8. 7. Thereafter, as the pulse rate of the deceased came down, the Doctor advised the parents of the deceased to shift her to Ananthapur Hospital. However, her parents have taken her to Government Hospital of Kurnool. The injured died about at 05.00 a.m. in the morning on 15.10.2013. Thereafter, after receiving the death information, the Section of Law is altered from 498-A and 307 IPC to Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 302 IPC. 8. Inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased by P.W.7, who is the Tahsildar. In the inquest also, it is found that the deceased sustained burn injuries. Ex.P.1 is the inquest report prepared at that time. 9. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. P.W.6, who is the Doctor, held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He found the burn injuries on the dead body which are ante mortem in nature. He opined that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge is “shock due to mixed degree ante mortem flame burn injuries” and issued Ex.P.3 postmortem report to that effect. He has stated in column No.9 in Ex.P.3 report that when the dead body was brought for postmortem examination, kerosene like smell is emitting from the body. 10. During the investigation, the police have examined the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report and also seized M.O.4 matchbox and M.O.5 empty bottle at the scene of offence. The burnt clothes of the deceased were also seized during the course of investigation which are M.Os.1 to 3. Rough sketch of the scene of offence was also prepared which is Ex.P.13. 11. The burnt clothes of the deceased were also seized during the course of investigation which are M.Os.1 to 3. Rough sketch of the scene of offence was also prepared which is Ex.P.13. 11. After completion of investigation, as the investigation revealed that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze with a match stick and she sustained severe burn injuries and thereafter succumbed to the same in the Hospital and that the accused committed murder of the deceased, police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 302 IPC. 12. In the trial Court, charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 302 IPC were framed against the accused and they were read over and explained to the accused. Accused denied the said charges and claimed to be tried. 13. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 documents and M.Os.1 to 5 material objects to substantiate the case of the prosecution against the accused. 14. After closure of the evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence that was adduced against him. Accused denied the incriminating evidence that was adduced against him. However, while answering question No.4 in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination relating to evidence given by P.W.3 that the accused poured water upon the deceased, who was in flames, and thereafter ran away seeing them, the accused stated that it is false and further stated that he was there only and that he poured water and took the deceased to Government Hospital. while answering question No.12-b in Section 313 Cr.P.C examination relating to evidence given by P.W.11, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he has arrested the accused on 19.10.2013, he stated that he was in his house in Guntakal and police took him away from his house in Guntakal. 15. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 16. while answering question No.12-b in Section 313 Cr.P.C examination relating to evidence given by P.W.11, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he has arrested the accused on 19.10.2013, he stated that he was in his house in Guntakal and police took him away from his house in Guntakal. 15. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 16. At the culmination of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly acquitted him of the said charges. However, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC of committing murder of the deceased and accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment as detailed supra. 17. Aggrieved thereby, the instant Appeal has been preferred assailing the said judgment of conviction. 18. When the appeal came up before the Court for hearing, we have heard Sri. Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, at length. 19. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the points that emerge now for determination are : 1. Whether the deceased met with a homicidal death. 2. If so, whether the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze and whether the accused is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased. 3. Whether the case falls under 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC as contended by learned counsel for the appellant and whether the sentence is required to be modified accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case: Point No.1: 20. The specific version of the prosecution is that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze with a matchstick and she sustained severe burn injuries and succumbed to the same and thereby met with homicidal death. The defence version is that she was caught fire accidentally while cooking in the house and she sustained burn injuries accidentally and succumbed to the same and as such, it is an accidental death. 21. The medical evidence completely belies the contention of the accused that it is an accidental death and that she was caught fire while she was cooking. 21. The medical evidence completely belies the contention of the accused that it is an accidental death and that she was caught fire while she was cooking. It is significant to note that in Ex.P.3 at column No.9, which deals with external appearance of the dead body when she was brought to the Hospital for post-mortem examination, the Doctor found that kerosene like smell is emitting from the dead body. It is stated as follows : “kerosene like smell is emitting from body”. 22. If really the deceased was accidentally caught fire while cooking, there is no possibility of kerosene smell emitting from the dead body. Kerosene on the dead body can be found when it is a case of self-immolation. If the deceased pours kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze and commits suicide then there is a possibility of finding kerosene on her body or when any other person pours kerosene on her body and set her ablaze, then also the kerosene would be found on her body and there is possibility of kerosene smell emitting from her body. These are the two circumstances under which one can find kerosene on the dead body. But, when a person is accidentally caught fire while cooking, there is no possibility of finding kerosene on the dead body. So, the medical evidence on record which shows that kerosene smell is emitting from the body completely rules out the plea of accidental death that is now taken by the accused. 23. It is not the case of the accused that the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself ablaze. Therefore, it is not at all the specific case of the accused that it is a case of suicidal death. It is also not the case of the prosecution that she died by committing suicide due to self-immolation. So when it is nobody’s case that she committed suicide, the said theory of suicidal death can be completely ruled out. There remains whether it is a homicidal death or accidental death. As discussed supra, the medical evidence completely rules out the version of accidental death as pleaded by the accused. So, the only conclusion that can be arrived at on the basis of the medical evidence on record is that it is a clear case of homicidal death. 24. There remains whether it is a homicidal death or accidental death. As discussed supra, the medical evidence completely rules out the version of accidental death as pleaded by the accused. So, the only conclusion that can be arrived at on the basis of the medical evidence on record is that it is a clear case of homicidal death. 24. P.W.6, who is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, clearly deposed in his evidence that he found ante mortem mixed degree of dermo epidermal flame burn injuries present all over the body except over scalp, lower back of trunk etc. He further stated that the percentage of burn injury is about 70% of the body surface area. He clearly opined that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge is shock due to mixed degree of ante mortem flame burn injuries and Ex.P.3 post-mortem report was issued to that effect. He was not even cross-examined by the accused. Therefore, the entire testimony given by P.W.6 absolutely remained unchallenged. It is not even suggested by the accused to the Doctor P.W.6 that the said injuries are sustained by the deceased accidentally or at least that there is any possibility of the deceased sustaining any such injuries accidentally at the time of cooking. 25. Therefore, if it is really a case of accidental death as has been now contended by learned counsel for the appellant or as per the defence taken by the accused during the course of trial, he would have suggested at least to P.W.6 that the injuries are sustained by her accidentally at the time of cooking or at least he would made an attempt to elicit the possibility relating to the said accidental death in the cross-examination of P.W.6. As noticed supra, the cross examination of P.W.6 is recorded NIL and he was not at all cross-examined to establish the said fact. 26. The accused during the course of trial has suggested to witness P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased, and also to P.W.3 that the deceased accidentally caught fire while cooking food. Now it is significant to note that he did not state that the deceased caught fire accidentally while cooking in the Section 313 Cr.P.C examination. 26. The accused during the course of trial has suggested to witness P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased, and also to P.W.3 that the deceased accidentally caught fire while cooking food. Now it is significant to note that he did not state that the deceased caught fire accidentally while cooking in the Section 313 Cr.P.C examination. Therefore, except making a bald assertion in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the deceased caught fire accidentally while cooking, nothing was brought out from the evidence of any of the said witnesses or from the medical evidence that the deceased was accidentally caught fire while cooking and that it a case of accidental death. P.Ws.1 to 3 denied the suggestion that she was caught fire accidentally at the time of cooking. So the accused has miserably failed to establish either by any direct evidence or by showing preponderance of probabilities or eliciting anything from the testimony of the witnesses who are examined in this case that it is a case of accidental death or the deceased caught fire while cooking accidentally. 27. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case and considering the medical evidence on record and the probabilities of the case, we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that it is a clear case of homicidal death and that the deceased met with homicidal death. It is not at all a case of accidental death as has been contended by the accused. It is a false defence taken by him. 28. Therefore, the point is answered affirmatively in favour of the prosecution holding that the deceased met with homicidal death. Point No.2: 29. Now the crucial point that arises for adjudication is whether the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze with a matchstick and whether he is responsible for the said burn injuries sustained by her and whether he has committed murder of the deceased or not. 30. Adverting to the point, it is relevant to note at the very outset that the presence of the accused along with the deceased at 02.00 p.m., on 14.10.2013 in the said house i.e., at the scene of offence where the offence took place, is not disputed by him and he has categorically admitted his presence at that time. 30. Adverting to the point, it is relevant to note at the very outset that the presence of the accused along with the deceased at 02.00 p.m., on 14.10.2013 in the said house i.e., at the scene of offence where the offence took place, is not disputed by him and he has categorically admitted his presence at that time. The scene of offence is only a single room house in a factory where both of them were working at that time. Therefore, when the deceased was found in the company of the accused alone under one roof in a single room house and when she sustained severe burn injuries in his company which resulted into her death, it is for the accused to explain as to how his wife sustained burn injuries while she was in his company under one roof which resulted into her death. 31. As noticed supra, while answering point No.1, he offered explanation stating that she was caught fire accidentally while cooking food and it is a case of accidental death. The said explanation offered by him is found to be false from the medical evidence on record and other surrounding circumstances. Therefore, it is to be held that he has given a false explanation explaining the death of the deceased with burn injuries while she was in his company. So, this clearly indicates the guilty mind of the accused in offering a false explanation. It is to be held that in order to wriggle out from his liability of committing the murder of the deceased that the said false explanation is offered by him suppressing the truth. It is well settled law that when the accused has taken a false defence and offered false explanation relating to the homicidal death of his wife, it is certainly a circumstance pointing towards his guilty in committing the murder of the deceased. It is also well settled law that when no explanation is offered by the husband and when a false explanation is offered, it is to be inferred that he is the person, who has killed his wife while she was alone in his company under one roof. That is the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn in the given facts and circumstances of the case as per the settled law. 32. That is the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn in the given facts and circumstances of the case as per the settled law. 32. The Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh, (2014) 12 SCC 211 held that when wife met with unnatural death in a room occupied by both the husband and the wife, burden of proving the fact especially within knowledge of the accused is on him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. There is no evidence of anybody else entering the room. So, facts relevant to cause of death being only known to the accused and he did not explain the same. So, strong presumption that the accused murdered his wife arises and he is liable for conviction under Section 302 of IPC. 33. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , also the Apex Court held that in a case of death of wife, and when the offence was committed in secrecy inside a house, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there is a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the offence was committed. They cannot keep quiet on the premise that the prosecution must discharge its burden of proving the case. 34. Be that as it may, in the instant case, there is a statement available of the deceased, which is Ex.P7. This Ex.P7 was recorded by the Head Constable, who is P.W.8, when she was immediately taken to the Hospital in Tadipatri. The incident, according to prosecution version, took place at 02.00 p.m., in the afternoon in the house of the accused. She was taken to Government Hospital at 04.40 p.m., as per the evidence of the Doctor who is examined as P.W.9. This P.W.9 clearly deposed that immediately after she was admitted in the Hospital with burn injuries that he treated her and has sent intimation to the Police Station. On receiving the said medical intimation, P.W.8, who is the Head Constable of Tadipatri Police Station, immediately reached the Hospital and he has examined the deceased. This P.W.9 clearly deposed that immediately after she was admitted in the Hospital with burn injuries that he treated her and has sent intimation to the Police Station. On receiving the said medical intimation, P.W.8, who is the Head Constable of Tadipatri Police Station, immediately reached the Hospital and he has examined the deceased. P.W.8 deposed in his evidence that on receipt of the information relating to admission of the deceased in the Hospital with burn injuries from the duty Doctor that he immediately reached the Hospital and examined Shaik Masthan Bee i.e., the deceased and recorded her statement. He further deposed that she stated before him that her husband i.e., the accused used to harass her and demand her to give money to consume alcohol and that on that day when he harassed her as usual to give money to consume alcohol that when she stated that if he harasses her like that, that she would die, that the accused immediately stating then both of us will die together and brought kerosene and poured on her and set her ablaze and went away. Ex.P.7 is the said statement of the deceased recorded by him. 35. Now, it is relevant to note that while she was undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital of Tadipatri, as her pulse rate came down as per the evidence given by P.W.9, who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon working in the said Government Hospital, that he has advised her parents to take her to Government Hospital of Anantapur, but her parents took her to Government Hospital, Kurnool, on that night and that she died at 05.00 a.m., in the morning. 36. Therefore, as per settled law, Ex.P.7 statement of the deceased which was recorded by the Head Constable, who is P.W.8, can be now considered as a dying declaration of the deceased. P.W.9, who initially treated the deceased, also certified when P.W.8, who is the Head Constable, recorded her Ex.P.7 statement that she was in a fit state of mind to give the said statement. Ex.P.8. is the said certification given by the Doctor. So, it is evident that Ex.P.7 statement given by her before P.W.8 – the Head Constable while she was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind. Ex.P.8. is the said certification given by the Doctor. So, it is evident that Ex.P.7 statement given by her before P.W.8 – the Head Constable while she was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind. The said statement of P.W.7 clinchingly proves that the accused as usual harassed the deceased in his house on 14.10.2013 at about 02.00 p.m., demanding money from her to consume alcohol and when she expressed her agony in this regard that he poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze with a matchstick. The injured is the best person to speak as to how she sustained the said injuries and who caused the said burn injuries to her. Her statement given in Ex.P.7 clearly and clinchingly proves that it is the accused, who poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze and she sustained the said burn injuries which ultimately resulted into her death. 37. The Apex Court in the case of Munnu Raja v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 3 SCC 104 clearly held that F.I.R. lodged by the deceased just before succumbing to injuries is admissible as a dying declaration. It is further held that the said dying declaration can be acted upon even without corroboration. Then, recently again the Apex Court in the case of Sri Bhagwan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 12 SCC 137 also reiterated the law in this regard and held that even Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of the deceased, who subsequently succumbed to the said injuries, can be treated as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act and it can be made basis for conviction of the accused. 38. Further, in another recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1494 also, it is held as follows : “There is no rule to the effect that a dying declaration is inadmissible when it is recorded by a police officer instead of a Magistrate. Although a dying declaration ought to ideally be recorded by a Magistrate if possible, it cannot be said that dying declarations recorded by police personnel are inadmissible for that reason alone. The issue of whether a dying declaration recorded by the police is admissible must be decided after considering the facts and circumstances of each case.” 39. Although a dying declaration ought to ideally be recorded by a Magistrate if possible, it cannot be said that dying declarations recorded by police personnel are inadmissible for that reason alone. The issue of whether a dying declaration recorded by the police is admissible must be decided after considering the facts and circumstances of each case.” 39. Therefore, the legal position is now very clear from the law enunciated in the aforesaid judgments that when an injured gives a statement which is registered as an F.I.R or when an injured gives a statement which is recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C stating as to who caused the said injuries to the injured, and when subsequently if he/she dies on account of the said injuries, the F.I.R or Section 161 Cr.P.C statement can be treated as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act and it can be made basis for arriving at a conclusion regarding the guilty of the accused. 40. As noticed supra, the statement that was given by the deceased in Ex.P.7 which is now to be considered as a dying declaration admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act clinchingly proves that it is the accused who poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze and thereby killed her. 41. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that a careful scrutiny of Ex.P.7 statement of the deceased shows that there are doubtful circumstances surrounding the said statement and he would contend that it was fabricated by the Head Constable P.W.8. He would contend that there is a gap between the thumb impression of the deceased and the contents above the said thumb impression and it shows that it was subsequently created. He would also contend that according to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they admittedly have taken the deceased to the Hospital and they did not depose in their evidence that the Head Constable, who is P.W.8, recorded the statement of the deceased at the Hospital and it clearly shows that this Ex.P.7 was subsequently fabricated and pressed into service by P.W.8. Therefore, he would contend that these suspicious circumstances clearly show that Ex.P.7 is not a genuine document. 42. We do not find any merit in the said contention. We have also carefully examined Ex.P.7. Therefore, he would contend that these suspicious circumstances clearly show that Ex.P.7 is not a genuine document. 42. We do not find any merit in the said contention. We have also carefully examined Ex.P.7. We do not find any such considerable gap between the thumb impression and the above contents relating to the statement of the deceased. Therefore, the said contention cannot be countenanced. Further, P.W.8, the Head Constable, has clearly stated in the cross-examination that the deceased is in the separate room in the Hospital when he recorded her statement in the said Hospital. So, it is now obvious that her parents or any others are not in the room where P.W.8 recorded her statement. So, obviously the parents, who are not in the said room at the time of recording the statement, would not have any knowledge about recording of statement of the deceased by P.W.8. So, the mere fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not state that they have seen the Head Constable - P.W.8 recording the statement of the deceased by itself will not make Ex.P.7 statement or the evidence of P.W.8 doubtful or false. Therefore, the said contention is absolutely devoid of merit. 43. Further, P.W.8 is an official witness, who is working as the Head Constable in Tadipatri Police Station. After receipt of information from the Doctor in the Hospital, he went there and recorded her statement in discharge of his official duties. There is no valid reason shown as to why he has to fabricate the statement of the deceased, which is Ex.P.7. No motive is attributed to P.W.8 also by the accused. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the contention that Ex.P.7 was fabricated by P.W.8. Therefore, Ex.P.7 is a genuine statement given by the deceased to P.W.8. 44. Further, it is significant to note that the duty doctor certified on Ex.P7 statement of deceased that she was in fit state of mind to give statement. Ex.P8 is the said certification. It clearly proves that it was a genuine statement recorded by police. 45. Apart from the evidence of Ex.P.7 the statement of the deceased which is now considered as a dying declaration, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 also proves that the deceased stated before them immediately after the incident that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. 45. Apart from the evidence of Ex.P.7 the statement of the deceased which is now considered as a dying declaration, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 also proves that the deceased stated before them immediately after the incident that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. She clearly deposed in her evidence that the accused used to harass the deceased as he is addicted to consuming alcohol and demanding money from her for the said purpose. She also stated that they brought them from Guntakal to Tadipatri and they both used to reside in a room in the factory where they are working and that on the date of the offence that while she was on duty along with her husband that she was informed that her daughter sustained burn injuries and immediately they went to her house and at that time, the deceased informed her that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Similarly, even P.W.2, who is the relative of P.W.1, deposed that after knowing that the deceased sustained burn injuries that he also went to the house of the deceased and found that she sustained burn injuries and that the deceased informed him that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. 46. P.W.3 is the son-in-law of the neighbour of the accused. He stated that he came to the house of his parents-in-law on the occasion of Dasara and when he was in the house of his parents-in-law and when he was sitting in front of the house of his mother-in-law, he noticed kerosene smell coming from the house of the accused and when they went to the house, they found the deceased in flames and the accused running away from the house and that they have extinguished the flames on her. 47. He also deposed that the deceased informed them that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 also clearly establishes that immediately after the incident when they reached the scene of offence that the deceased clearly informed them and stated before them that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. 48. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 also clearly establishes that immediately after the incident when they reached the scene of offence that the deceased clearly informed them and stated before them that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. 48. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that even these oral statements given by the deceased before P.Ws.1 to 3 immediately after the incident tantamount to a dying declaration given by her and it is admissible evidence under Sections 6 and 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Parbin Ali v. State of Assam, (2013) 2 SCC 81 wherein it is stated as follows : “Veracity of testimony of related witnesses in respect of oral dying declaration given by the deceased is established and the same is found to be absolutely credible and the same can be acted upon as evidence admissible under Section 32(1) and 6 of the Evidence Act.” Therefore, in view of the law enunciated in the above judgment, the statement given by the deceased immediately after the incident to PW.1 to PW.3 is to be now considered as her dying declaration. 49. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 to discredit the testimony given by them to that effect. P.W.1, being the mother, and P.W.2, being the relative, naturally reached the scene of offence immediately after knowing about the incident. Though P.W.3 is not the original neighbour of the accused, he has accounted for his presence in the adjoining house of the accused stating that his parents-in-law are the neighbours of the accused and he came to the house of his parents-in-law on the occasion of Dasara and he was present in their house at that time. He further deposed that after noticing kerosene smell from the house of the accused that they reached the said house and found the deceased in flames and the accused running away and the deceased has given the statement as discussed supra. 50. Nothing was brought out from his cross-examination also to disbelieve his testimony and to discard the same. No motive or enmity is attributed to him with the accused to show that he has given false evidence against him because of the said motive or enmity. 50. Nothing was brought out from his cross-examination also to disbelieve his testimony and to discard the same. No motive or enmity is attributed to him with the accused to show that he has given false evidence against him because of the said motive or enmity. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 can safely be relied on. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly proves that the deceased stated before them immediately after the incident that the accused poured kerosene and set her ablaze. So, considering the statement of the deceased given in Ex.P.7 recorded by P.W.8 coupled with the statement of the deceased given to P.Ws.1 to 3 stating that it is the accused who has poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze, it can be safely concluded that it is the accused who has set her ablaze and caused burn injuries to her and committed murder of the deceased. 51. Therefore, the point is also answered affirmatively in favour of the prosecution holding that the accused is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased and he has committed murder of his wife. Point No.3: 52. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the statement of the deceased in Ex.P.7 and also the statement given by her to P.Ws.1 to 3 shows that when accused demanded money from the deceased to consume alcohol and when she stated that if he continues to harass her that she would die that the accused while stating that both of us together would die brought kerosene and set her ablaze. So, on the basis of the said facts of the case and the evidence on record, he would contend that it is a case of sudden and grave provocation given by the deceased to the accused and he would also contend that the accused has no intention to commit murder of the deceased and it is only done in a fit of anger as there was an altercation between both of them at that time and the facts of the case attract only the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. The said contention is too preposterous to countenance and it is absolutely devoid of merit. The case, in fact, clearly falls under the explanation thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 IPC which defines murder. 53. The said contention is too preposterous to countenance and it is absolutely devoid of merit. The case, in fact, clearly falls under the explanation thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 IPC which defines murder. 53. As can be seen from the explanation thirdly of Section 300 IPC, when the act is done with an intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then it amounts to murder. Therefore, intention to kill is not the prerequisite to hold whether a particular act committed by the accused is murder or not. Though intention to kill is generally required, but still when the act is done with an intention of causing bodily injury to any person and when such bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it is sufficient to hold that it is a case of murder. 54. In the instant case, the accused by way of pouring kerosene on the deceased and setting her ablaze with a matchstick intended to cause such bodily injury to her i.e., burn injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, it is a clear case of committing murder and it does not fall under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC. So, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in Ajmal v. State of Kerala, (2022) 9 SCC 766 has no application to the present facts of the case. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution. 55. It is relevant to note that it is clear from the facts of the case that the presence of the accused in his house when the offence took place is not disputed by him. In fact, he also sustained burn injuries in the said incident. Ex.P.12 is the wound certificate of the accused. It is evident from it that he has sustained burn injuries. The Doctor, who is P.W.10 who examined him, also testified to the fact that he has examined the accused and he found first degree and second degree of burn injuries on his right upper limb and that he issued Ex.P.12 wound certificate. It is evident from it that he has sustained burn injuries. The Doctor, who is P.W.10 who examined him, also testified to the fact that he has examined the accused and he found first degree and second degree of burn injuries on his right upper limb and that he issued Ex.P.12 wound certificate. Therefore, this evidence also clearly establishes his presence at the scene of offence when the offence took place and as he also sustained burn injuries, clearly proves that he has poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. As per Ex.P.7 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the accused ran away from the house after setting her ablaze. The said conduct of the accused in escaping from the scene of offence and running away after the incident is another circumstance pointing out to his guilt. Thus, from the evidence on record and from all the proved circumstances in this case, the only irresistible conclusion that can be arrived at in this case is that it is the accused and the accused alone who has committed murder of the deceased. 56. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same, has arrived at a right conclusion and rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Upon considering the said evidence on record and on re-appraisal of the same, we also found that the accused is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it calls for no interference in this appeal. 57. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction of the trial Court. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.