( 1 ) HEARD the learned senior counsel Shri C. Padmanabha Reddy for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor for the prosecution

( 2 ) "the sole accused in this case was tried for offences under Sections 498-A and 302, ipc. The charges were. framed on the basis of the allegation that oh 7-4-1998 at about 10 p. m. , the accused committed the murder by intentionally causing the death of padmavathi who was his wife. Another allegation was that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty, and, therefore, the charge under Section 498-A, IPC was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses. 14 documents were exhibited. 7 material objects were marked.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH 19 witnesses were examined, the whole case of the prosecution rests upon an oral dying declaration purported to have been made by the deceased before P. W. 1 the sister of the deceased in the presence of p. W. 9 a relative of the deceased and P. W. 1. The prosecution story is that the deceased was given in marriage to the accused 13 years before. The accused, after some time of the marriage, had developed illicit relations with one Rajeshwari of Nagari. After developing illicit relations with the said rajeshwari, he started harassing the deceased. Whenever the deceased visited her parents or her sisters, she would narrate them the stories of harassment caused to her by her husband. The accused was facing a criminal case and was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment by a magistrate s Court against which he filed an appeal before the appellate Court which also he lost. He needed Rs. 10. 000/- for the purpose of prosecution of further remedies before the High Court. Therefore, he demanded this amount from his father-in-law through his wife. Since his wife and his father-in- law were not able to meet his demand, he, during the night of 7/8-4-1998, poured kerosene over the deceased and lit a matchstick. The deceased got burns and eventually died in the hospital on the same day. P. W. 1 was informed about the incident, as she was in the same village. When she rushed to the house of the deceased, she was informed by P. Ws. 7 and 8 that the deceased had been shifted by her husband and others to Ramachandra Hospital, a local private hospital. She, accompanied by her father-in-law, went to the Ramachandra , Hospital, She stated that when she reached ramachandra Hospital, she saw her sister placed in a! car to be taken to SVRR Hospital. Tirupathi. At that time, P. W. 1 met her sister, the deceased, and the deceased told her that the accused had set her on fire by pouring kerosene over her as she had not got the money he had demanded. The deceased also told P. W. 1 that she should inform her father and should lodge a complaint against her husband with the police. This happened on 7/8-4-1998 at mid-night P. W. 1 did not accompany the deceased to SVRR hospital, Tirupathi, which is 55 Kms. away from the private hospital. According to the evidence and the records of the hospital, at 2. 30 a. m. , on 8-4-1998 the deceased died. On 8-4-1998 at 12. 05 p. m. , P. W. 1 gave a report to the police which is Ex. Pl. This report was obviously given to the police after the death of the deceased. An explanation has been furnished by P. W. 1 for giving the report after almost 12 hours of the occurrence. She stated that she had telephoned her parents and she was waiting for them. Therefore, she waited up to 12 noon on 8-4-1998. But, when the parents did not turn up by 12 noon, she thought it prudent to file the report. We do not see anything unnatural about such explanation. A sister dies in unnatural circumstances due to burns, another sister informs parents and does not file a report with the police immediately it looks to us natural process. Therefore, on this count we may not agree with the defence that this is a circumstance which should be taken in favour of the accused.

( 4 ) LEARNED senior counsel