The judgment establishes the importance of dying declarations and the application of appropriate sections of the IPC based on the circumstances and intention of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Surendra P. Tavade, J. - The Appellant (original Accused) has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.234/2014 whereby she was convicted of the charge of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, can be summarized as under:

Bhumya Ramyya Yalmadu - Deceased (hereinafter referred to as the Deceased) was residing in a room at Railway Sankalp Vasahat Mankhurd, Mumbai. He was widower. He came into contact with the Appellant at Cuf Parade. The Appellant was widow. Both of them decided to reside together in the house of the Deceased. The Appellant was addicted of liquor and narcotic drug. Hence, she used to demand money from the Deceased.

3. On 12.12.2013 at about 10.00 a.m. the Deceased and Appellant were in the house of Deceased. The Appellant demanded Rs.600/- from the Deceased, but the Deceased gave only 100/- to her and told her that he would give balance amount afterwards. But the Appellant got annoyed and poured kerosene on the person of the Deceased and set him ablaze. Hence, the Deceased sustained severe burn injuries on the various parts of his body. Atiq Khan, neighbore of deceased poured water on the person of the Deceased. Somebody informed the incident to the police.

4. On receipt of the information about burning of the Deceased, police came to the house of the Deceased and shifted him to Rajewadi Hospital. In the hospital, the Medical Officer - Dr. Anand Nishad Pahadi (PW-1) recorded the history of the incident given by the deceased. Similarly, the police officer also recorded the statement of the Deceased with the consent of Medical Officer, which was treated as FIR. On the basis of statement of the Deceased, Crime No.364/2012 was registered u/s. 307 of IPC. During the course of treatment, on 13.12.2013 at about 11.00 a.m. the Deceased succumbed to burn injuries. The Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence and prepared the panchanama. He also seized articles and took samples from the spot. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer prepared a inquest panchnama and the dead body was sent to the postmortem. Dr. Shivaji Vishnu Kachare (PW-5) was conducted the postmortem. He prepared the PM report wherein he opined that cause of death of the Deceased was shock due to 85% superficial to deep burns which was unnatural. Hence, the Appellant came to be arrested.

5. After the death of the Deceased, the charge was altered to Section 302 of IPC. The seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analysis. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet came to be fled against the Appellant in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Mumbai. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case of the Appellant in the Court of Sessions for trial.

6. On appearance of the Appellant, a charge came to be framed under Section 302 of IPC at Exh.3. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove the charge against the Appellant, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of as many as seven witnesses. It was defence of the Appellant that she was not present in the house at the time of incident. The Deceased sustained burn injuries due to blast of the stove. However, she did not lead any evidence in support of her defence.

8. On going through the evidence on record and the submissions of the rival parties, the learned trial Court held the Appellant guilty u/s.302 of the IPC and sentenced her as aforesaid. Hence, the Appellant preferred this appeal.

9. Shri. Vagal, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant submitted that except dying declaration there is no evidence on record to prove the involvement of the Appellant in the crime. He submit