(Per P.V.HARDAS, J.)

1. The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default of which to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months, by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, by judgment dated 15/01/2006, in Sessions Case No.145 of 2005, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence.

2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may be briefly be stated thus PW 8 Manik Wagh, Naib Tahsildar, who was attached to Buldana was served with a letter on 17/06/2005 requesting him to record the dying declaration of Jyotsana, who had been admitted in the hospital having sustained burns. He accordingly requested the Medical officer to ascertain if Jyotsana was in a fit condition to give her statement. The Medical Officer accordingly endorsed that Jyotsana was in a good mental condition to give her statement. The endorsement of the Medical Officer is at Exh.42. Thereafter PW 8 Manik Wagh recorded the statement of Jyotsana at Exh.45. In the dying declaration at Exh.45, Jyotsana had stated that her husband had poured kerosene on her and had set her ablaze. PW 3 Anil Jadhav, who was on duty as a Home Guard on 18/6/2005 was requested to deliver the papers to the Police Station Janefal. He accordingly delivered the papers to the Police Station. On the basis of the said dying declaration, offences punishable under Sections 307, 498A, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered. PW 12 Dnyandev Zagare, P.S.I, who was attached to Police Station Janefal received the case diary of Crime No.34 of 2005 and he accordingly proceeded to the hospital at Buldana and recorded the statement of Jyotsana. He arrested the accused and recorded the statements of witnesses. The seized property was referred to the Chemical Analyzer along with the requisition at Exh.52. Further to the completion of investigation, it appears that a chargesheet against the accused came to be filed and offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added, as Jyotsana had succumbed to her injuries on 22/6/2005.

3. On committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Trial court vide Exh.8 framed charge against the appellant and other accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and other accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. The accused had admitted the inquest panchanama at Exh.16, which was drawn on 22/6/2005 between 10.00 and 10.30 a.m.

4. The trial court upon appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses acquitted the other accused but convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code only. Before we deal with the submissions advanced before us by Shri R.R.Shrivastava, learned counsel appointed for the appellant, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

5. The entire case against the accused revolves around the dying declaration at Exh.45 recorded by PW 8 Manik Wagh and the oral dying declarations made to PW 5 Ashok and PW 6 Mandabai, parents of deceased Jyotsana.

6. PW 8 Manik Wagh, the Naib Tahsildar, states about receiving a requisition for recording the statement of Jyotsana and proceeding to the Civil Hospital and recording the statement 5 of Jyotsana at Exh.45 after ascertaining the condition of Jyotsana from the Medical Officer. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he does not know whether father and mother of Jyotsana were present. Admission is further elicited that he had observed that Jyotsana was conscious. He has also admitted that the Medical Officer had issued the certificate at Exh.42 in his presence. He has admitted to have read over the dying declaration to Jyotsana before obtaining her thumb impression. 7. We, therefore, find that no dent has been made