( 1 ) THE appellant challenges his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon him vide orders dated 21. 10. 1998 and 24. 10. 1998 respectively by learned additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. According to the prosecution, on 6. 3. 1997 at about 9. 25 p. m. , the appellant poured kerosene oil on his wife Kamlesh and put her on fire as a result of which, she sustained burn injuries and succumbed on 8. 3. 1997.

( 2 ) A charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

( 3 ) IN support of its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Ramji Lal Gupta, a neighbour of the appellant, who was one of the first persons to reach the spot and who found deceased Kamlesh in a badly burnt condition crying in pain. She was saying that her husband had burnt her. He informed the Police and with the help of Police Control Room staff, removed her to Jai Prakash Narain Hospital. PW-2 Geeta, daughter of the appellant, aged about five years, did not support the prosecution case and stated that her mother had died by committing suicide and the appellant had not burnt her. PW-3 is a Police photographer. He proved on record the photographs of the spot as well as their negatives. PW-4 Head Constable Mohd. Anis Khan deposed that on 6. 3. 1997, he was in-charge of the Police Control Room Van. At about 9. 15 p. m. on receipt of a call, he had gone to the spot and removed the deceased to Jai Prakash Narain Hospital in a burnt condition. He also stated that the deceased was crying that she had been burnt by her husband.

( 4 ) PW-5 Dr. A. P. Singh had conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. He proved his report exhibit PW-5/a and stated that the deceased had suffered about 85% burns and had died on account of burn injuries. In his cross-examination by learned counsel for the appellant, he stated that a patient with 85% burns is able to speak but the patient cries with pain. PW-6 Hari Chand is the father of the deceased Kamlesh. He did not support the prosecution case and stated that the accused was keeping his daughter well and did not maltreat her. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined by learned APP. In his cross-examination by learned APP, he admitted that when he and his wife PW-7 visited the deceased in hospital, she told them that the accused appellant had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil on her and lighting fire. PW-7 Smt. Roopmati, the mother of the deceased deposed that when they reached the hospital at about 12. 00 in the night, her daughter had told her that the accused had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil and lighting the fire.

( 5 ) PW-8 Head Constable Naresh Pal proved on record the FIR exhibit PW-8/d. PW-9 Constable Sonu Kaushik had prepared the site plan exhibit PW-9/a. PW-10 Constable Rakesh Kumar had gone to the spot along with the Investigating Officer. PW-11 Head Constable Jai Prakash had recorded the wireless message and transmitted the same to the concerned Police Station.

( 6 ) PW-12 Dr. Girish Chand Pandey proved the MLC exhibit PW-12/a which he had prepared at the time of the admission of the injured to the hospital. In his cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused, he stated that the history given in the MLC was given to him by the patient. He denied that at that time, the patient was unable to speak or give the history. PW-14 Manoj Kumar, SI is the Investigating Officer.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to him, he had recorded the statement of the deceased after she was declared fit by the Doctor. The Doctor had also signed the said statement of the deceased. PW-15 Lady Constable Urmila brought with her the control room register and proved the entries exhibit PW-15/a and 15/b. PW-16 Om Prakash, Record Clerk, Jai Prakash Narain Hospital deposed that Dr. Saurabh Kumar Sharma, who had endorsed exhibit PW-8/b had left the hospital and his last address was not known. He