IMPORTANT POINT
Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate when Magistrate had only working knowledge in Hindi and recorded it with help of Doctor who translated the question put to deceased and then answers given by her would be admissible and reliable.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-This appeal by the appellant herein arises out of a judgment of conviction and sentence passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 606/96 whereby and whereunder the judgment passed by Additional Session Judge, Ranga Reddy District dated 21.6.1996 in S.C.No. 47/93 convicting the appellant herein for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to undergo life imprisonment was modified to one under Section 304 Part - II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.

2. The basic facts of the matter shortly stated are as under :-

The deceased was married to Radha Krishna, PW 2, brother of the appellant herein on or about 15.5.1990. The appellant and her mother Heeramani (since deceased) and one B. Harikrishna had been abusing and harassing the deceased for compelling her to bring T.V and other articles. Radha Krishna, the husband of the deceased having regard thereof decided to reside separately in the same house alongwith his wife. On 23.1.1991 at about 1.00 p.m., the appellant and her mother entered into the room of the deceased. She was then reading a book. The appellant poured kerosene on her and her mother closed the deceased s mouth whereafter fire was set on her by the accused No. 1. Thereafter she rushed outside with flames on her person shouting for help. Two neighbours, Ch. Susheela and Smt. N. Yadamma attracted by her shouts came and poured water. Her dress was changed and she was taken to the Railway Hospital by them followed by one Sri G. Venugopal, another neighbour.

3. While she was in the Railway Hospital, the Head Constable of Malkajgiri police station recorded her statement at about 7.30 p.m. on 23.1.1991 on the basis whereof a case under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC was registered. She later on died. The brother of the appellant, (the husband of the deceased) supported the prosecution case fully at the investigation stage. A charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant and the accused No. 3 as in the meanwhile the accused No. 1 died.

4. Before the learned Session Judge, 21 prosecution witnesses were examined including the brother of the appellant as also the neighbours.

5. The learned Session Judge having regard to the materials on records held the appellant guilty of charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Accused No. 3, however, was acquitted. On appeal, the High Court although substantially affirmed the findings of the learned Session Judge but altered the conviction and sentence from one under Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code stating:

"..... Till her death what type of medicines were given to save her from the burn injuries are not produced before the Court. It is also not explained by the prosecution that during the deceased s stay in the hospital, she was treated by the able doctor. In the absence of such explanation, it is also possible to believe that the deceased might have died due to untime and improper medicines given by the doctors in the hospital. In view of the circumstances explained, the submission made by Sri Ramanadham that it was not the intention of A-2 to kill the deceased is correct. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part and accordingly it is allowed in part. However, the conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment are set aside and it is now ordered that A-2 is convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, in view of her young age and other special circumstances pointed out by Sri Ramanadham regarding sentence. This shall not be the precedent for other cases."

6. This appeal has been filed questioning the aforementioned judgment of conviction and sentence.

7. Mr. T. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the learned S