Roshan Dalvi, J.

1. The Appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.1007 of 1996, dated 27th October 2004, under which they have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigourous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months each.

2. The prosecution case is that the Appellants were the sister-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Vidya Shetye, respectively. They lived in the same house with Vidya and her husband one Prakash. There were frequent quarrels between the appellants and Vidya. A criminal complaint was also filed by Vidya’s brother against the Appellants as well as her husband for ill treating and harassing her. It is the prosecution case that on 4-1-1996 when the Appellants were in the house with Vidya, Appellant No.1, her sister-in-law poured kerosene over her person and Appellant No.2, her mother-in-law pushed her onto the stove which was burning and thus set her on fire. She received 100% burn injuries due to which she succumbed 4 days later on 8-1-1996.

3. This case has been sought to be proved essentially through her dying declarations made initially to the Police Officer who was called by the hospital Authorities and upon which this case came to be registered and then to the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) who recorded the same and orally also to her husband and brother. There is no material difference between the 2 written Dying Declarations.

4. The case of the Appellants is that Vidya suffered from accidental burns and that they have been falsely implicated.

5. The prosecution has examined the Police Officer, the Magistrate, who recorded her Dying Declaration, as also the Doctor who certified her physical and mental condition at that time to prove the written Dying Declarations. The prosecution has also examined her husband and her brother to prove her oral Dying Declarations. The prosecution has also examined the panch to prove the spot panchanama, the Doctor to prove her postmortem report and the 2 Investigating Officers (IO) who investigated the case. The prosecution case is based on two written and two oral dying declarations. The oral dying declarations were purportedly made to PW2-the husband and PW3-the brother of the deceased.

6. Vidya admittedly suffered burn injuries in her matrimonial home on 4th January 1996 at about 11 AM when the Appellants were admittedly present. Vidya was shifted to Mulund General Hospital. The police was immediately informed about the incident by the hospital. The Police Sub Inspector (PSI) immediately went to the hospital. By about 11.30 AM, he reached the casualty ward and met the Doctor on duty. The Doctor informed him that the patient was conscious and he recorded her statement and obtained the endorsement of the Doctor. He treated the same as the FIR and registered the case. He thereafter called the SEM-PW4, who recorded another similar dying declaration. PW4 also contacted the Doctor about the fitness of the patient. He also recorded her statement upon being informed that she was fit to make a statement.

Thereafter the IO-PW8 prepared the spot panchanama and arrested the appellants. Further investigation was carried on by another IO-PW9.

7. The prosecution case has to be considered upon the evidence of the IO-PW8. It is his evidence that he received a message from Mulund General Hospital where a lady was admitted of burn injuries. At about 11:30 AM, he went to the hospital to see the injured person Vidya Shetye who was admitted to the casualty ward. He enquired from the Doctor the fitness of the patient to make the statement. He recorded the statement upon being informed by the doctor that the patient was conscious and fit to make the statement. He obtained the thumb mark of the patient upon recor