Challenge in this appeal is to Judgment rendered by Principal Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Sessions Case No.97/2004. By the impugned Judgment, appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Section 304-II read with 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 457 read with 34 of the I.P.C. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - (Rs.Two thousand) each in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1 ,000/- (Rs.One thousand) each in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months, respectively, for the above offences. Both the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The incident giving rise to the prosecution occurred in the evening of 19th February, 2004 at residential house of deceased Muktabai. Her husband - Bapurao and appellant No.2 - Laxman are brothers inter se. Appellant No.1 is the wife of appellant No.2 and appellant No.3 is their son. Said Bapurao and appellant No.2 were residing separately but there were disputes on account of demand for complete partition of the residential house. Though said Bapurao used to demand partition of the residential house, yet appellant No.2 - Laxman was not effecting the same. There used to be frequent quarrels between the two families on account of such demand for partition.

3. The prosecution case is that in the relevant evening, said Bapurao had gone to attend recitation of a religious book (Pothi) at Maroti temple whereas, his two sons had gone to a nearby house of one Ashroba. The deceased was, therefore, alone in the house at about 7.30 p.m. The appellant No.2 - Laxman then came in front of house of the deceased. He was in drunken condition. He addressed obscenities to her. saying that she had kept illicit relations with all the inhabitants of village Hatkarwadi. So, Muktabai closed the door of her house. The appellants thereafter entered the house by removing corrugated zinc sheets of the roof. The appellant No.2 - Laxman poured kerosene on her person. appellant No.1 - Sarubai instigated the other two appellants to do away with her life saying "remove this thorn!". Immediately appellant No.3 - Dnyaneshwar set her ablaze by lighting a match stick. She was engulfed by flames of fire and started shouting. The appellants fled away from the house when she started shouting. Her son - Namdeo rushed there on hearing the shouts. He extinguished the fire. Lateron her husband and the son took her to Civil Hospital at Parbhani. In the same night, her dying declarations and Police statement were recorded at the hospital. She narrated to her son as to how she was set ablaze by the appellants.

4. While she was under medical treatment, injured Muktabai died on 24.2.2004. The Police carried out certain investigation into the crime registered on basis of dying declaration given by Muktabai. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination revealed that Muktabai died as a result of cardia respiratory failure due to septicemia, which was result of 100% burn injuries sustained by her. On basis of material gathered during investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 457 read with 34 of the I.P.C.

5. The appellants denied truth into the accusations. They pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh.14). They did not raise any specific defence. It is suggested that they have been falsely implicated due to the dispute over demand of partition of the house property.

6. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 9 (nine) witnesses in support of its case. The defence examined DW-1 Laxman, the village Police Patil, in order to disprove oral dying declaration given by deceased Muktabai to her son. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case on basis of the two written dying declarations as well as oral d