The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus--The accused is the resident of Karad.He had married to one Malan who died because of burn injuries previously, therefore, he solemnized his second marriage with deceased Sanjivani.He was living with his children and wife.He always used to quarrel with her after drinking liquor.On the date of the incident i.e., on 18.4.1999 he was in drunken condition and picked up quarrel with his wife at 5.00 p.m. At that time, daughter Rupali (P.W. 2) was playing outside the house.She was sent to call her maternal uncle Shiva (P.W. 3).He arrived at the spot of the incident and saw that the accused had been quarrelling with his wife and he had poured kerosene on her person.The accused then took match-box and lighted match-stick and threw it on the person of his wife and consequently she sustained burn injuries.The accused and Shiva took her to the Cottage Hospital, Karad, for medical treatment at about 7.05 p.m. Dr. Chivate (P.W. 6), medical officer on duty, started medical treatment.He also recorded the history of the incident as given by Sanjivani who disclosed that it was her husband who had set her on fire.JUDGMENT P.V. Kakade, J.The medical officer informed the police.Police Head Constable Tukaram (P.W. 8) visited the Cottage Hospital at about 11.05 p.m. and recorded the F.I.R. wherein deceased Sanjivani also disclosed him that it was her husband who set her on fire by pouring kerosene upon her.On the basis of the F.I.R., offence was registered at C.R. No. 94 of 1999 punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. at City Police Station, Karad.Sanjivani was then transferred to Civil Hospital, Satara for the purpose of medical treatment where she succumbed to her injury.Dr. Marulkar (P.W. 9) had effected the autopsy on the dead body and post-mortem report was duly submitted to the police.According to the report, Sanjivani sustained 85% burn injuries and she died as a result of those burn injuries.Doctor also opined that burn injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.He also recorded the death as homicidal on the case paper.The offence was converted into 302 of the I.P.C. against the accused.The investigating officer visited the spot of incident and drew spot panchnama.Inquest panchnama was held and the body was sent for post-mortem examination whose report is part of the record.Statements of witnesses were recorded and incriminating articles seized in the course of title investigation were sent to C.A. for examination whose report was received and is part of the record.On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was sent to the Court of law.The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The learned Sessions Judge, Satara framed charge against the accused for the impugned offence to which he pleaded not guilty.Defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability.According to the Sessions Judge, it was a homicidal death suffered by Sanjivani.Prosecution led its evidence at length on which basis the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt and accordingly recorded the order of the conviction and severe sentence against the accused in aforesaid manner.Hence the appeal.We have heard Mr. A.P. Mundargi for the appellant and Mrs. Kejariwal, learned A.P.P. for the State.We have also perused the entire evidence on record.As can be seen from the evidence on record, it is the case based on two dying declarations besides evidence of various witnesses providing corroboration to the dying declarations.The evidence of Dr. Chiyate, medical officer of Cottage Hospital, Karad, shows that on 19.4.1999 he was on duty.At about 7.15 p.m. on 18.4.1999 patient Sanjivani Patne was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries.He examined her and found that there were burn injuries all over her body to the extent of 72%.Accordingly he prepared case paper.The patient also gave history stating that burn injuries were caused by her husband by pouring kerosene over her person at about 7.15 p.m. at Mangalwar Peth, Karad.At the time of recording history, as per Dr. Chivate's evidence, Sanjivani was conscious and well oriented.She was responding to verbal commands.There was smell of kerosene.Even her hair were wet due to kerosene.The medical treatment was given to her and the patient was transferred to Krishna Hospital at Karad at about 8.30 p.m. but was again brought by the relatives to the Cottage Hospital at 10.30 p.m. At 10.45 p.m. he informed his superiors to arrange for recording dying declaration of Sanjivani and, therefore, police were informed to record dying declaration.At 12.30 a.m. during the night, the patient was transferred to Civil Hospital, Satara, for further treatment.According to Dr. Chivate, Sanjivani was also in a position to talk and give statement during the period from 10.30 p.m. to 12.30 a.m. during the night.This version of Dr. Chivate is corroborated by case history record Exh. 30 wherein it is clearly stated that patient had given history of homicidal burn by her husband by pouring kerosene upon her at 7.00 p.m. at Karad, Mangalwar Peth.It was observed that patient was conscious and well oriented and cooperative and was responding to verbal commands.The second dying declaration comes in the form of F.I.R. P.W. 8 Tukaram, Police Head Constable attached to Karad Police Station had stated that Head Constable Ankushe directed him to record dying declaration of Sanjivani on receipt of the information.Perusal of Exh. 31 shows that Sanjivani had stated that it was accused--her husband who had poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.According to her, she was subjected to such treatment by accused because he suspected her chastity.This dying declaration was recorded in the presence of Dr. Chivate as he has testified to.Moreover, P.W. 8 has also categorically stated that while he recorded the statement Exh. 32, Dr. Chivate was present throughout the time and after recording the statement he obtained thumb mark of Sanjivani below it and then obtained signature of the medical officer upon the same.P.W. 2 Rupali, 10 years old daughter of deceased Sanjivani was examined as a witness along with P.W. 3 Shivaji who was supposed to be the eye-witness to the incident.They did not support the prosecution case, however, their evidence in the present status also is sufficient to support the prosecution version.Rupali, the other eye-witness has stated that she was playing outside the house of her own and at which time quarrel was going on between Sanjivani and the accused in the house.At that time, she found that her mother was in burnt condition.Similarly, P.W. 3 Shivaji has admitted the fact that he was called by witness Rupali and when he went there at the house of the accused, he saw accused and Sanjivani were quarrelling.In the course of the said quarrel, accused asked her wife to go to her parents' home as he was suspecting her chastity.However Sanjivani refused to go to her parents' home and then she went inside the room.The accused also followed her.While they went inside, the witness smelt of kerosene and hence went inside the room and saw that kerosene was poured on the person of Sanjivani.She was wearing saree and blouse and thereafter the witness came out and Sanjivani shouted loudly that she should be saved.At that time, she was on fire.No doubt, this witness has however turned hostile and stated that he did not see as to how she was set on fire.In spite of this denial, the evidence of witness Rupali and Shivaji has categorically established the fact that accused and Sanjivani were quarrelling inside the house of the accused when accused was insisting that she should go to her parental home and Sanjivani was refusing to do so, at which time Shivaji went inside and saw that kerosene was on the person of Sanjivani.Thereafter she went to the bathroom shouting that she should be saved and at which time she was found in flames.This scenario testified by witness Rupali and Shivaji, in our view, is sufficient to lend support to the evidence of dying declarations on record and further provides corroboration to that evidence.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.

Cited provisions: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code