ORDER

1. The appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC for causing murder of Gangaben, her brothers wife, in the early hours of June 11, 1975 by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her aflame. The marriage had taken place with Jayantilal, the brother of the appellant, hardly three months before the incident in question. On the date of the incident the deceased was in the husbands house when the unfortunate incident took place. On hearing the cries a neighbour Prahladbhai went to the house and found that the deceased was inside the kitchen. He pushed opened the door and saw the deceased aflame. The said Prahladbhai, Bhanubhai, the brother of the appellant, and others took her to Shardaben Hospital for treatment. They reached the casualty department at about 6.45 a.m. and thereafter she was admitted to the Burns Ward as an indoor patient at about 6.50 a.m. Within five minutes thereafter PW 5 Dr Kiritkumar Solanki examined her. While taking her case history he enquired of the injured as to what had happened. The injured replied "my nanad (sister-in-law) burnt me". He prescribed certain medicines, noted the case history and thereafter instructed the nurse, PW 4 Pankajben, to give the treatment. Dr Solanki was in charge of the Burns Ward at the relevant time as PW 2, Dr Suresh Ambvani, was absent. Dr Ambvani arrived at about 8.30 a.m. in the ward and examined the patient. After noting her pulse, etc., he asked her how she had received the burns. She told him that she had been burnt. On further questioning she stated that her husbands sister had burnt her. Dr Ambvani thereupon asked her the name of her husbands sister which she disclosed as Padma, the appellant before us. Dr Ambvani later made a note about the information divulged by the victim on the police yadi which was received at about 2.45 p.m. to ascertain if the victim was in a fit condition to make a dying declaration.

2. After the victim was brought to the hospital a telephone message was sent to Madhupura Police Station. The investigating officer in the course of investigation recorded the panchnama of the scene of occurrence at about 10.15 a.m. The panchnama shows that the residence of the victim was on the first floor. In the outer room pieces of burnt clothes and a peeled skin piece were found. To the south thereof was the kitchen which was smelling of kerosene. Pieces of burnt clothes were also lying in that kitchen. There was a primus with a burner and a broken match box soiled with water lying alongside certain garments, namely, two blouses, two petticoats and two half burnt sarees. There was water on the floor.

3. Inspector Nagori claims to have interrogated the accused on the same day but arrested her on the next day at about 5.00 p.m. The investigation thereafter proceeded in usual course and ultimately the appellant came to be charged as stated above.

4. The prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of the two medical men PW 2 Dr Ambvani and PW 5 Dr Solanki. In addition thereto reliance is placed on the evidence of the two nurses PW 3 Rukshmaniben and PW 4 Pankajben. The neighbour PW 7 Prahladbhai was also examined but he turned hostile. On an appreciation of the evidence of these witnesses the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, came to the conclusion that this was a case of homicidal death. That conclusion has been confirmed by the High Court and has not been contested before us. With regard to the evidence of the two medical men the trial Judge concluded that there was no reason to doubt their testimony since the same was corroborated by the cotemporaneous entries made by them in the case paper and the police yadi. Taking note of the evidence of PW 1 Dr Purohit who performed the post-mortem and the evidence of PW 5 Dr Solanki, he came to the conclusion that the victim was in a position to speak. Having regard to the fact that she had 90 per cent burns, her pulse was 130, respiration was 20 and her general condition was not good, he concluded, relying