A.S. Oka, J.-This is an appeal preferred by accused No.1 challenging the order of conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Penal Code"). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. For the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code the appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant has been directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The appellant is the husband of the deceased. Accused No.2 is the sister of the appellant and accused No.3 is the mother of the appellant. Initially, the charge was framed against all the accused under Sections 498-A, 323, and 302 of the Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Additional charge was framed under Section 304-B of the Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Penal Code on 10th September. 2008. The allegation of the Prosecution in short, is that the accused persons with their common intention used to harass abuse and used to subject the deceased to cruelty which was of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to her life limb or health physical or mental and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused for their demand for dowry. It is alleged that on 24th November. 2006, at about 9.30 in night, the appellant poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her on fire after latching the door of the house from inside. As a result of the same, the deceased succumbed to her injuries in the hospital. It is alleged that the death was a dowry death. It is alleged that the accused committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing death of the deceased.

3. The prosecution examined in all 28 witnesses. The prosecution relied upon the dying declaration of the deceased. It must be stated here that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the notes of evidence and other evidence on record. He submitted that there was no evidence of cruelty. He submitted that the evidence of P.W. 22 Ismailsab Halgeri (father of the deceased) has to be ignored as he was an interested witness. He pointed out that the said witness has deposed that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also harassing his daughter and in the alleged dying declaration the deceased had not uttered a single word against accused Nos. 2 and 3. He submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the aspect of alleged cruelty is totally inconsistent. He submitted that the alleged dying declaration is doubtful. He submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) who allegedly recorded the dying declaration admitted that the declaration was not in his handwriting and at the same time he admitted that except for the deceased and he himself, there was nobody present in the room at the time of recording the dying declaration. He submitted that the question arises as to who wrote the dying declaration. The scribe who wrote the dying declaration has not been named and has not been examined. He pointed out that only in the re-examination the SOM came out with the explanation that his clerk had written the dying declaration. He submitted that however the prosecution has failed to examine the clerk. He invited attention of the Court to the conduct of the appellant. He pointed out that the appellant himself suffered burn injuries and the appellant himself informed the relatives of the deceased and others a about the burn injuries sustained by the deceased. He submitted that the appellant was arrested by the police more than on