( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the judgment in Sessions Case No. 1/ 1996 on the file of the Sessions Judge, mahabubnagar, dated 30. 1. 1999, convicting the sole accused under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Assailing the conviction and sentence, the accused filed the present appeal, questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment.

( 2 ) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that, the accused was the husband of Rajeshwari, that on 24. 3. 1994 the Head Constable (HC. 280) of II Town Police Station, Mahabubnagar received a medical intimation from the headquarters Hospital, Mahabubnagar with regard to the admission of Rajeshwari with burn injuries, that the Head Constable visited the hospital and recorded the statement of rajeshwari wherein she stated that on 24. 3. 1994 at about 8. 00 a. m. , when her husband asked for money she replied that she had no money, the accused asked for pusthe but she refused to give it, then the accused pulled the pusthe Rope , thereafter the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire to her, that basing on the said statement, a case in Crime No. 7/ 1994 under Section 307 I. P. C. was registered, that during the course of investigation, the judicial I Class Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, recorded the statement of Rajeshwari, that on 13. 4. 1994 Rajeshwari succumbed to the burn injuries, and that the police altered the section of law from 307 to 302 I. P. C. and investigated into.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the Prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 16 were examined and Exs. P1 to p14 were marked. The lower Court, after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that an offence under Section 304 Part II i. P. C. was made out, and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.

( 4 ) NOW the point for determination is whether the judgment of the lower Court is correct, legal and proper?

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant contended that there is no evidence except the alleged dying declarations of the deceased said to have been given to the police and the Magistrate, that the dying declarations do not inspire confidence as they are mutually contradictory, that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give a statement, and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 304 part-II I. P. C. On the other hand, the learned public Prosecutor contended that the statements recorded by the Police and the magistrate would clearly go to show that the accused had thrown the lighting matchstick on the deceased after pouring kerosene and therefore the deceased sustained the burn injuries, that the statements given by the deceased to police and Magistrate are admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence act, and that once the statements are found to be true and correct, conviction can be maintained without any corroboration. He prays to dismiss the appeal.

( 6 ) P. WS. L to 10 did not support the case of the Prosecution. Except Exs. P10 and P13, there is no other evidence on record to show that the accused is the assailant of the deceased or that he threw the lighting matchstick on the deceased. The original statement given by the deceased and as recorded by the Head constable (HC. 280) in Ex. P10 was not filed into the Court. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on Ex. P10-F. I. R. because it is not proved to be the statement recorded by the Head Constable (HC. 280) from the deceased.

( 7 ) EX. P13 is the statement recorded by P. W. 13. On receipt of Ex. P12-requisition, p. W. 13 went to the hospital and recorded ex. P13. The relevant portion in Ex. P13 reads as follows:"he asked to give Pusthe.