JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy, J. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.141 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for “ Life ” and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three (03) months. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 02.09.2016, at about 1:00 p.m., the accused, suspecting the fidelity of his wife, by name Shaik Bajibee @ Pathan Baji (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), picked up a quarrel with her and, in the course of the said quarrel, poured kerosene over her and set fire to her, as a result she sustained fatal burn injuries and died, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, briefly, is as follows : i) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Narasaraopet Town. The deceased was none other than the wife of the accused. P.W.1 and P.W.5 are the brothers of the deceased. P.Ws.2 to 4 are neighbours of both the accused and the deceased. The accused was eking out his livelihood by carrying on business in tender coconuts. Marriage between the accused and the deceased was solemnised about five (05) years prior to the date of the incident, and thereafter they were residing together at Narasaraopet. The accused was addicted to consumption of alcohol and, under the influence of such addiction, used to harass the deceased by suspecting her fidelity. He would frequently return home in a drunken state and pick up quarrels with her. ii) While so, on 02.09.2016 at about 1:00 p.m., the accused came to the house in a drunken state and picked up a quarrel with his wife. During the course of the said quarrel, he is stated to have beaten her, poured kerosene over her, and set her on fire, and thereafter fled away from the house leaving her in flames. On hearing the cries of the deceased, P.Ws.2 to 4 rushed to the spot, and P.W.3 extinguished the flames. Immediately thereafter, P.W.3 and others shifted the deceased to the Government Area Hospital, Narasaraopet, for treatment. On hearing the cries of the deceased, P.Ws.2 to 4 rushed to the spot, and P.W.3 extinguished the flames. Immediately thereafter, P.W.3 and others shifted the deceased to the Government Area Hospital, Narasaraopet, for treatment. iii) On receipt of Ex.P6- Hospital intimation, P.W.7-the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet proceeded to the hospital at about 2:00 p.m. and recorded Ex.P7-Dying Declaration of the deceased. On the same day, at about 2:45 p.m., on receipt of the hospital intimation, P.W.8- the then II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasaraopet, also went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P9-Dying Declaration of the deceased. iv) Having received Exs.P6 and P7, PW.11-the then Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Police Station registered a case in Crime No.84 of 2016 under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P12. Immediately, he proceeded to the Government Area Hospital, Narasaraopet and recorded statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. He also recorded statement of P.W.2 and others. He secured the presence of P.W.9 and others and proceeded to the scene of offence. He prepared an observation report-Ex.P10, at the scene of offence. He also seized Mos.1 to 3, at the scene of offence. He prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P14, at the scene of offence. He also recorded statements of P.W.2 to P.W.4 and others. v) While undergoing treatment, the injured succumbed to the burn injuries on 09.09.2016. On receipt of the death intimation- Ex.P15, at about 6:30 a.m. on 09.09.2016, P.W.11 altered the sections of law from Sections 307 and 498-A IPC to Sections 302 and 498-A IPC, and the altered memo is marked as Ex.P16. As the death of the deceased occurred within seven (07) years of her marriage, P.W.11 addressed a requisition to the Tahsildar, Narasaraopet, to hold inquest over the dead body. P.W.6, the Tahsildar, Narasaraopet, conducted inquest over the dead body at the Government General Hospital, Guntur, in the presence of mediators, and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P5. During the the inquest, P.W.6 recorded statements of P.Ws.1, 5 and others. After completion of the inquest, P.W.11 sent the dead body for post-mortem examination vi) P.W.10-Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. During the the inquest, P.W.6 recorded statements of P.Ws.1, 5 and others. After completion of the inquest, P.W.11 sent the dead body for post-mortem examination vi) P.W.10-Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. On examination, he found approximately 80% infected ante- mortem dermo-epidermal burn injuries present over the face, neck, and the entire right upper limb, except a portion of the right arm. He opined the cause of death was due to septicemic shock consequent to the infected burn injuries. He issued post-mortem certificate-Ex.P11. vii) On 11.09.2016 at about 04:40 p.m., on credible information, P.W.11 arrested the accused near vegetable market under a flyover in the presence of mediators. Accused was remanded to judicial custody. After collecting all the relevant documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed charge sheet. 4 . In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P1 to P16 and exhibited MOs.1 to 3. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 6. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5, coupled with Exs.P7 and P9, the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the neighbours of the appellant and the deceased, examined as P.Ws.2 to 4, did not support the prosecution and were declared as hostile, and that the prosecution has relied only on P.Ws.1 and 5, the brothers of the deceased, who are interested witnesses. They were not present at the time of the incident. Having come to know of the occurrence through the said neighbours, they came to the scene of offence. Therefore, he prays this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions judge. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal, contending that both the dying declarations-Exs.P7 and P9 are consistent, reliable, and inspire confidence, and that there are no grounds to discard the same. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor requests this Court to dismiss the appeal. 9. Heard Sri D.V.S. Lokeswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 10. We have carefully perused and analyzed the entire evidence on record. 11. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor requests this Court to dismiss the appeal. 9. Heard Sri D.V.S. Lokeswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 10. We have carefully perused and analyzed the entire evidence on record. 11. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 speaks to the harassment made by the appellant towards the deceased. P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, stated in his evidence that on receipt of information from the neighbours that the appellant had set the deceased on fire, he immediately rushed to the house and shifted her to Government Area Hospital, Narasaraopet, for treatment. 12. P.W.5-the other brother of the deceased stated in his evidence that having received information from P.W.1, he directly proceeded to the hospital, where he found the deceased with burn injuries undergoing treatment. 13. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 5 were not present at the time of the incident and came to know of the occurrence only through the neighbours, who, however, did not support the prosecution case. 14. The crucial evidence available on record consists of two (02) dying declarations of the deceased, marked as Exs.P7 and P9. Earliest statement- Ex.P7, recorded by P.W.7-the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet discloses that at about 1:00 p.m. on 02.09.2016, the appellant came home in a drunken state, picked up a quarrel with her, beat her on the suspicion of her fidelity, poured kerosene over her, set her on fire, and left the place. She further stated that on hearing her cries, P.W.3 and others came and extinguished the flames by covering her with blankets. 15. The second dying declaration, Ex.P9, recorded by P.W.8-the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet also contains a clear statement of the deceased that the appellant poured kerosene over her and set her on fire. In both the dying declarations, the version of the deceased as to the manner in which she sustained burn injuries is consistent, cogent, and free from material contradictions. 16. It is further evident that, prior to recording both the dying declarations, certification was obtained from the Medical Officer to the effect that the patient was conscious, coherent, and in a fit state of mind to give statement. Both the declarations bear the endorsement of the duty doctor, thereby lending assurance to their voluntariness and reliability. 17. 16. It is further evident that, prior to recording both the dying declarations, certification was obtained from the Medical Officer to the effect that the patient was conscious, coherent, and in a fit state of mind to give statement. Both the declarations bear the endorsement of the duty doctor, thereby lending assurance to their voluntariness and reliability. 17. It is admitted case that no third person was residing in the house. In such circumstances, it was incumbent on the part of the appellant to explain how the deceased sustained burn injuries and met with a homicidal death inside the matrimonial home, in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 18 . However, no explanation is forthcoming from the appellant. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant merely pleaded Alibi, stating that he was not present in the house and that he was at the marketplace at the relevant time. Significantly, he did not adduce any evidence whatsoever in support of the said plea of Alibi. 19. As the prosecution could able to prove Exs.P7 and P9-Dying Declarations and as no explanation has been forthcoming from the appellant in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and since the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 corroborates the version of the deceased as reflected in Exs.P7 and P9, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, needs no interference. 20. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet in Sessions Case No.141 of 2017, dated 27.10.2017 under Section 302 IPC. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.