K.G. SHANKAR, J :--Circumstantial evidence and duality of dying declarations and their evidentiary value are under consideration in this appeal. It is a case of uxoricide. As usual in the case of a family rift and consequent criminal action on the part of the spouse, the alleged killing of the deceased-wife by the accused-husband took place inside the house. There were, therefore, no eye-witnesses for the incident proper.

2. The deceased-wife, who was admitted in the hospital, made a statement to a Police Head Constable (PW13) and later to a Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PW4). The prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses out of the 27 witnesses cited by it. Ex.P1 is the statement recorded by PW 13 from the deceased. EX.P4 is the dying declaration recorded by PW4. On the basis of Exs.P1 to P4 and the evidence of the witnesses, the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry found the accused guilty for the solitary charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and also fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

3. Although the accused was defended before the trial Court, the accused pleaded his inability to engage a Counsel before this Court. Smt. N. Ammaji was appointed as legal aid Counsel to represent the accused.

4. The case of the prosecution brief is:

(i) The deceased was the wife of the accused. Their marriage was solemnized about six years prior to the death of the deceased. The deceased gave birth to a female child during their wedlock.

(ii) The accused was addicted to vices and more particularly the accused was an alcoholic. Although he was a labourer by profession, he was lazy and was not attending to labour work. He used to contract debts to raise money to satisfy his vices. The accused and the deceased often used to quarrel on that count.

(iii) The accused stayed with the deceased only for about four months after the marriage. He later went away to the house of his parents leaving the deceased at the house of her parents. A compromise was thereafter. reached at the behest of the relatives of the accused and the deceased. Late Vanapalli Badram was the chief mediator at that time. The accused consequently joined the deceased at D. Kesavaram, which was the place of residence of the deceased. The accused, however, did not mend his ways and continued with his wavering behaviour.

(iv) On 6.10.2004, when the accused returned to the matrimonial house at about 7.30 p.m. in a drunken state, the deceased questioned the conduct of the accused and found fault with him for not going to labour work. The accused bore grudge and decided to kill the deceased-wife. He consequently poured kerosene found in the house upon the deceased and set her ablaze. He later went outside the matrimonial home, bolted the door from outside and took to heels. On hearing the painful cries of the deceased, neighbours rushed to the house of the accused and the deceased, opened the doors of the house, rescued the deceased from flames and shifted her to Government Headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry by about 11.10 p.m.

(v) The Duty Head Constable at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry recorded the statement of the deceased (Ex.P1 ). The Sub-Inspector of Police (PW14) registered the same as First Information Report (FIR) under Section 307 IPC (under Ex.P13). When the accused subsequently died, altered FIR (Ex.P15) was issued under Section 302 IPC.

5. On the basis of the allegations of the prosecution, a solitary charge under Section 302• IPC was framed against the accused. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Exs.P1 to P20 and MOs.1 to 4 were marked. The defence neither examined any evidence nor did it mark any exhibits on its side.

6. The evidence of the prosecution is: PW1 is the father of the deceased. PW2 is the mother of th