JUDGMENT

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

1. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment dated 10.04.2003 of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1998.

Facts:

2. The facts very briefly are that on 05.03.1997 Sudesh, wife of Gopal, was admitted at Bed No. 19 in Female Surgical Ward of General Hospital, Dholpur, because of burns and she gave a statement to the police that she was married to Gopal for about 10-12 years and she did not have any dispute with her mother-in-law, father-in-law, elder brother-in-law and younger brother-in-law and they had never harassed her. She, however, stated that Santosh, son of her uncle-in-law, used to frequently irritate her by joking with her and between 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 Noon he came to her and took her inside a room holding her hand and said that he will not leave her alive. In her statement, she also stated that Santosh had a kerosene oil can in his hand and he poured the kerosene on her by lifting the container and ignited fire to her saree with a matchbox and when she shouted, her mother-in-law and her younger sister, Suman, who was married to her brother-in-law, came running to her and Santosh ran away after igniting the fire. In her statement, she further stated that due to fire, her clothes and she herself got burnt badly and her mother-in-law brought her for treatment. Pursuant to this statement, an FIR was registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') by ASI Shyam Lal against the respondent. Subsequently, Sudesh was shifted to the Kamla Raja Hospital, Gwalior where she died on 10.03.1997. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent under Section 302, IPC.

3. As the respondent denied the charge, he was tried by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur, in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1997. At the trial, amongst other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, Rakesh Kumar, who visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and seized the plastic can, pieces of bangles, burnt saree, blouse, string and broken matches from the site of occurrence and prepared the seizure memo was examined as PW-1; Pinki, who was the sister of the husband of the deceased, was examined as PW-2; Shyamo, mother-in-law of the deceased was examined as PW-3; Dr. R.C. Goyal, who was the Medical Jurist in General Hospital, Dholpur, and conducted the medical examination of the deceased and prepared the injury report (Ext. P-3) was examined as PW-4; Shyam Lal, ASI, who recorded the statement of the deceased at the hospital at Dholpur, was examined as PW-9; Dr. J.N. Soni, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased was examined as PW-10 and Dr. R. Gurmukhi, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased (Ext. P-10) at the hospital at Gwalior, was examined as PW-11. The respondent also examined defence witnesses DW-1, Ashok Kumar Sharma, said that the deceased had burnt herself. DW-2, Kalpana Tiwari, who was residing in the neighbourhood, said that the deceased told her that her mother-in-law has lit fire, DW-3, Mahendra Kumar, Compounder of the General Hospital, Dholpur, said that the deceased told Dr. R.C. Goyal that she burnt herself by pouring kerosene oil and DW-5, Bhagwan, said that the doctor told him that the deceased died by burning herself. The trial court rejected the defence story and convicted the respondent under Section 302, IPC and imposed sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- on the respondent.

4. Aggrieved, the respondent filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1998 before the High Court. In the impugned judgment, the High Court found that there was a delicate relationship between the deceased and the respondent. The High Court also found that when the deceased was initially examined by Dr. Goyal on 05.03.1997, she had told him that she herself set her aflame and she died five days thereafter, but no a