Subsequently, the appellant was heard on the question of sentence and by an order dated 5th March, 2002, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.The deceased, Laxmi Kanta, was an employee with the Central Reserve Police Force (for short the CRPF).On 23rd October, 1996, police station Najafgarh received intimation that a woman was burning in Naveen Place Colony, Jharoda Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi.The report indicated that the woman was an employee of the CRPF.On receipt of the information, the police went to the spot and came to know that the woman, Laxmi Kanta, had been removed to the CRPF Base Hospital in a police van.When the police reached the CRPF Base Hospital, they came to know that she had been referred to Safdarjung Hospital.It appears that in the meanwhile, Laxmi Kanta had informed the doctor in CRPF Base Hospital that her husband, Jaya Kumar Nair, the appellant had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.She gave similar information to her Commanding Officer who had come to see her in the Base Hospital.The police reached Safdarjung Hospital and made inquiries from the doctor on duty and were informed that the deceased was fit to make a statement.Accordingly, the Investigating Officer Constable Vinod Kumar recorded her statement in which she stated that her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and lit a matchstick and threw it on her as a result of which her saree caught fire.The Police then completed their investigations and a challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (for short Cr.PC) was filed.On 7th May, 1997, the following charge was framed against the appellant-That on 23-10-1996 at 9 p.m. Navin Place Colony near Kali Payau, Najafgarh, Jharoda Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Najafgarh, you had committed murder of Ms. Laxmi Kanta and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 302 IPC, within my cognizance.The accused pleaded not guilty and accordingly a trial was held.The appellant did not lead any evidence in his defense.The evidence on record shows that PW-1 Anil Kumar who was neighbour of the deceased stated that on 23rd October, 1996 he heard shouts from Laxmi Kanta.He immediately came out of his room and saw Laxmi Kanta burning.He extinguished the fire with the help of his mother and soon thereafter the police came.He stated that he did not know how Laxmi Kanta had caught fire but he pointed out the place in the open chowk (courtyard) where her burnt clothes were lying.By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).Significantly, he stated that the appellant was not present in the courtyard when Laxmi Kanta was on fire.PW-2 Dr. S.N. Patnayak from the CRPF Base Hospital proved the MLC Exhibit PW-2/A in which it is recorded that Laxmi Kanta had stated that her husband had poured kerosene on her body at about 9.00 pm on 23rd October, 1996 and lit it.He noted the burns on her body and after initial treatment the deceased was sent to Safdarjung Hospital for further treatment and the police informed.In his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was fully conscious but was crying due to pain.During the first year of marriage, the couple lived happily and thereafter they began quarreling and that the appellant often demanded some money from him.This witness was declared hostile.Inspector Neeraj Tyagi who was the Officer Commanding of the deceased was examined as PW-10, He stated that he was informed about her admission to the CRPF Base Hospital and he met Laxmi Kanta and inquired as to what had happened.She told him that a quarrel had taken place between her and her husband who then burnt her.He lodged an FIR against the appellant in police station Najafgarh.The doctor on emergency duty in Safdarjung Hospital, that is, Manoj Shukla was examined as PW-13 and he certified that the deceased was competent to make a statement.He took down the statement given by Laxmi Kanta in Safdarjung Hospital (Exhibit PW 13/A).Her statement was to the effect that her husband, that is, the appellant had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.Exhibit PW-5/A is the post mortem report in respect of the deceased.It shows extensive burn injuries and it has been certified that the cause of death is due to septicemia shock as a result of 55% deep infected ante mortem burns.The appellant did not lead any defense evidence but in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC he stated that the allegations against him were false and fabricated.The deceased was cooking food when her clothes caught fire.He tried to save her from getting burnt and as a result he received some burn injuries on his hands.He stated that he had taken her to the hospital in a police van.He further stated that the marriage between him and the deceased was a love marriage and the parents of the deceased were not happy with the marriage and were not on speaking terms with the appellant.He stated that since it was a love marriage, there was no question of any dowry demand.Learned amices curiae, submitted that the prosecution should have investigated how and why the appellant's hands got burnt.It was submitted that the case of the appellant was that the deceased had accidentally caught fire and his hands were burnt while he was trying to extinguish the fire.We do not find any substance in this contention urged by learned Counsel.For one, it has come on record that only his right hand sustained some burn injuries.It is quite unlikely that if he was trying to extinguish the fire, he would do so with only one hand and not use both hands.Moreover, we also find from the evidence on record that the appellant was nowhere to be seen when his wife was burning in the courtyard and when PW 1 Anil Kumar and his mother tried to extinguish the fire.It is also not acceptable that the appellant had accompanied the deceased to the CRPF Base Hospital.There is nothing whatsoever to suggest this.On the contrary, Exhibit PW-2/A suggests that the deceased was brought in a van of Delhi Police to the CRPF Base Hospital.Similarly, when PW-10 Insp.Neeraj Tyagi met the deceased in the CRPF Base Hospital, there is nothing to suggest that the appellant was present nor is there anything to show that when the dying declaration was recorded in Safdarjung Hospital, the appellant was available.If on these critical moments the appellant was not found showing any concern for his wife, it is very unlikely that he would have tried to extinguish the fire, as claimed by him.In fact, the appellant visited Safdarjung Hospital only on 25th October, 1996 when he was taken there after his arrest for a medical examination.The OPD card, Exhibit C-1 shows that he did not get his burnt hand treated in any hospital prior to that date.It was also submitted by learned amices Curiae that the arrest of the appellant was made under somewhat suspicious circumstances in as much as he was allegedly waiting at a bus stop on 24th October, 1996 when he was arrested.We do not find this submission of any consequence.On the contrary, what is suspicious is that the appellant ran away from his house.There was no reason for him to do so if nothing had happened at his instance.There is no report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short the CFSL) to indicate that kerosene oil was used in burning the deceased.In this regard, an effort was made to demolish the cause of death by burning on the basis of the opinion given by Dr. G. K. Chobey in the post mortem report Ex. PW-5/A as cause of death due to septicemia shock as a result of 55% deep infected ante mortem burns.But the fact remains that she made three statements before her death which can be treated as dying declarations.However, given the circumstances of (he case, it was not required for the doctor to lift the food and send it to CFSL to rule out any possibility of poisoning.Exhibit PW- 15/A1 is the death summary prepared by Dr. S. Kumar.It is clearly observed by the doctor in the death summary that the patient was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital with 55% deep burns on 23rd October, 1996 (wrongly written as 27th October, 1996) in a very critical condition.She was treated properly but her condition did not improve.She was also put on humidified oxygen inhalation but her condition did not improve and she could not be revived despite all C. P. R. measures.When an incident takes place within the four walls of a room, the prosecution ordinarily would not get any eye witness.Therefore, such cases have to be judged having regard to the entirety of the circumstances which are brought on record by the prosecution during the trial of the case.We may note that in this case the deceased had made three statements before her death.Firstly, she had stated before PW2 Dr. S. N. Patnayak in the CRPF Base Hospital that her husband had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.Her second statement was made before PW-10 Insp.Neeraj Tyagi her Commanding Officer before whom she stated more or less the same thing and, finally also before PW-14 SI Shyam Pal Singh, Investigating Officer.We have not been pointed out any inconsistency in any of these three statements.Both PW-2 Dr. S. N. Patnayak before whom she made the first statement and PW-13 Manoj Shukla from Safdarjung Hospital were satisfied that the deceased was conscious and capable of giving the statement.There is, therefore, no reason to doubt the capability of the deceased to make the dying declaration.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code