The appellant used to abuse Shobha for bringing less dowry.She used to deprive her from getting food and also used to misbehave with her.Before the date of incident, Shobha was not given any food by the appellant.On 5.7.1992 at 10 A.M when Shobha was sitting in her room, appellant, with a kerosene oil cane, entered her room, poured the oil on her and set her ablaze.Shobha cried and because of that neighbours reached to the place of incident.The said police station registered it as Crime No.90/92 under section 307 of IPC.Shobha was medically examined and statement of witnesses were recorded.In turn, Shobha was hospitalized for further treatment where she died.Apart from this, Mata Prasad (P.W.4), is neighbour of appellant and an independent witness.The appellant was tried by the court below in Sessions Trial No.312/92 for committing offence under section 498-A and 304-B and in alternatively under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').By the impugned judgment dated 9.11.95, the appellant was exonerated from the offence under section 498-A and 304-B IPC.However, she is held guilty for committing murder of her daughter-in-law Shobha.The appellant is accordingly convicted under section 302 IPC and was directed to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.Upon receiving the information of her death, 'marg' intimation No.90/92 was recorded and offence was converted from section 307 to 302 of IPC.After investigation, challan was filed before JMFC under section 498-A and 302 of IPC.On committal, the Sessions Court received the matter.The appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for full fledged trial.In her defense statement, she stated that she has been falsely implicated.Her daughter-in-law Shobha sustained burn injuries while preparing the food.In her support, Amritlal (D.W.1), Puranlal (D.W.2) and Smt. Janki Bai (D.W.3) entered the witness box.After recording the evidence of parties and hearing the arguments, the impugned judgment is passed which is called in question by Shri Siddharth Datt by contending; (i) The incident had taken place on 5.7.92 at 10 A.M. The FIR (Ex.P/14) was recorded at 10.50 A.M. There exists an over writing on the relevant column which is related to date and time of receiving information.Shri Datt submits that although this F.I.R may be treated as a dying declaration, this document is not trustworthy because at the bottom of this document, in a different hand writing name of deceased Shobha is written.Putting it differently, it is argued that under the thumb impression of deceased Shobha, in a different writing, her name is mentioned which creates serious doubt on this dying declaration; (ii) The dying declaration (Ex.P/10) recorded by the Doctor is also not trustworthy because time mentioned in it is 10.15 A.M.-:- 3 -:-A No.1565 of 1995 is interpolation in one entry of this dying declaration.This witness could not give satisfactory explanation regarding existence of two finger impressions on the dying declaration (Ex.P/10).Similarly, he could not give justifiable explanation about adding of words in the portion of impression which is marked as "D to D"; (iv) Dr. Nema was unable to show the reason of death whether it is homicidal or suicidal hence it is totally unsafe to hold the appellant guilty; (v) In cross-examination, Rakesh Tiwari (P.W.14) admitted that there exists an over writing in Ex.P/14 in " l to l" portion.As per statement of this witness also Shobha, was 100% burnt.If she was 100% burnt, it cannot be believed that she was in a fit state of mind to give the dying declaration.This witness was unable to explain as to how two finger impressions are available on Ex.P/10; (vi) Gulab Bai (P.W.2) mother of deceased did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile hence it is not safe to give stamp of approval to the impugned judgment; (vii) Reliance is also placed on the statement of defense witnesses wherein they have stated that Shobha had committed suicide;Shri Datt, learned counsel for the appellant, on the strength of aforesaid arguments stated that the findings of the court below are perverse in nature.The court below has not appreciated the documentary and ocular evidence in a lawful manner which resulted into conviction of the appellant.Shri Ajay Tamrakr, learned P.L for the respondent/state urged that the spot-map (Ex.P/1) was prepared which contains the name of Mata-:- 4 -:-A No.1565 of 1995 Prasad (P.W.4).Mata Prasad (P.W.4) is the neighbour and an independent witness who entered the witness box on behalf of the prosecution.By taking this court to the statement of Mata Prasad (P.W.4), he urged that the statement of this witness is totally trustworthy.In the dying declaration, the Doctor has specifically mentioned that deceased Shobha was in a fit state of mind.By placing reliance on Ramavati Devi Vs.It need not be recorded be the Magistrate.No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.We have heard the counsel at length and perused the record.The appellant was tried for committing offence under section 498- A and 304-B of IPC also apart from offence under section 302 of IPC.The mother of deceased Smt. Gulab Bai (P.W.2) turned hostile and prosecution could not lead any evidence to bring home the allegations regarding offence under section 498-A and 304-B of IPC.The first dying declaration was recorded by the Doctor at 10.15 A.M. As per evidence on record, the place of incident/ house of deceased and appellant is very near to the hospital and police station.There is no over writing on the first dying declaration (Ex.P/10) so far time of recording of this dying declaration is concerned.This dying declaration is pregnant with two finger impressions.In the right bottom of Ex.P/10 just below the thumb impression, it is clearly mentioned that it is right thumb impression of deceased Shobha.Yet another impression almost at the middle of this declaration finds place.Although there exists no explanation for existence of this thumb impression, we find no reason to doubt the dying declaration because of existence of another thumb impression on the same declaration.This is trite that if dying declaration is otherwise trustworthy, it amounts to substantive evidence-:- 5 -:-A No.1565 of 1995 and it cannot be discarded on flimsy grounds.The Doctor made it clear that the alleged interpolation of words between "D to D" were also made at the time of recording of declaration.A careful reading of this dying declaration (Ex.P/10) clearly shows that Shobha clearly deposed that mother-in-law/ appellant had poured kerosene and set her ablaze.There is no over writing or interpolation on this relevant parts of dying declaration.Thus, we find no reason to disbelieve this dying declaration.The aforesaid dying declaration (Ex.P/10) is called in question for yet another reason.It was argued that when burn injuries were to the tune of 100%, it is not safe to accept the dying declaration.The F.I.R (Ex.P/14) is also assailed for the same reason.It is noteworthy that Doctor clearly in the first dying declaration that Shobha is in a fit state of mind to give the declaration.The Division Bench of this Court in Rajiya Bi Vs.The Division Benchs in State of MP Vs.Koushal- 2008(4) MPHT-170 and Kamal Singh Vs.State of M.P.-ILR (2010) M.P.1797 also took the same view.Pertinently, in Vijay Pal Vs.State of M.P-(2015) 4 SCC-749, the Apex Court considered a matter where deceased sustained 100% burn injuries.The oral dying declaration was made to brother of the deceased.The dying declaration was found to be credible.State of Karnataka- (2010) 6 SCC 533 wherein the argument that deceased sustained severe burn injuries and it was elicited that tongue of the deceased was swollen and protruding and lips were burnt, were not accepted despite the fact that she sustained 100% burn injuries.The statement of Doctor was believed that she was in a fit state of mind to give the declaration.The same is the case here where Dr. Nema (P.W.9) could withstand the cross-examination and hisWhen he reached to the place of incident at around 10 A.M, he found that husband of deceased, namely, Govind brought Shobha out of the house.She was crying that mother-in-law set her ablaze.He and Govind took Shobha to the hospital.This witness clearly deposed that in the mid way to the hospital, Shobha was saying that appellant had set her ablaze.Her husband Govind repeatedly asked her not to take name of mother and advised her to take his, brother's or father's name but Shobha candidly-:- 7 -:-A No.1565 of 1995 stated that she will take the name of appellant because she alone had set her ablaze.This statement of the independent witness carries a lot of weight.There is no enmity between the family of appellant and this independent witness who is neighbour of the appellant.The appellant in her statement/ explanation under section 313 of Cr.P.C stated that deceased caught fire while preparing the food.However, the defence witnesses narrated a different story i.e she committed suicide.Thus, the defence of appellant and the story narrated by the defence witness, is not worthy of credence.

Relevant sections: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code