Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. Ramesh (the appellant, for short) impugns his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) vide judgment dated 29th October, 1999 passed in Sessions Case No. 6/1999 arising out of FIR No. 224/1998, Police Station Mukherjee Nagar. By the impugned order on sentence dated 1st November, 1999, the appellant-Ramesh has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/- and on failure to pay the same, undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.

2. The appellant was also charge sheeted under Section 498A IPC, but was not convicted on the said charge.

3. The deceased Asha was wife of the appellant and the occurrence in question had taken place in the intervening night of 5th and 6th August, 1998 in her matrimonial house No. 136, village Malik Pur. Asha, the deceased, was removed to JPN Hospital and had died after about eight days on 14th August, 1998 at 10.20 P.M.

4. The appellant challenging his conviction has submitted that the trial court has erred in relying upon the dying declaration of Asha, which is unreliable as it was not recorded by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), but by a police officer. Deceased Asha had remained admitted to the hospital for about eight days and thus, there was ample time and opportunity to ask an SDM to record the dying declaration. Vijay (PW-3), son of the deceased and the appellant, has not supported the prosecution version and has stated that his mother, i.e., the deceased Asha had put herself on fire and the appellant, i.e., his father had opened the door and had tried to save Asha and in this process had received burn injuries.

5. We have examined the contentions of the appellant and perused the records, including the testimonies of witnesses. We begin with the statement of Vijay (PW-3), son of the deceased and the appellant. Vijay (PW-3) did not remember his age, neither could he remember the date of the occurrence. He accepted that the deceased Asha was his mother and he has one brother Ajay. At about 11.30 P.M. at night, his mother got burnt and at that time Vijay (PW-3) and his brother were sleeping. This shows that Vijay (PW-3) was not aware as to how Asha, his mother had caught fire. However, PW-3 did depose that his mother had put herself on fire and his father, the appellant herein, had opened the door and tried to extinguish the fire and in this process had suffered burn injuries. He was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor and accepted as correct that inquiries were made by the police from him and that his father had come home after consuming liquor. He also accepted as correct that his father had quarrelled with his mother, but claimed that at the time of the occurrence, his father was sitting outside the house. PW-3 denied as incorrect that he was deposing falsely because the appellant was his father. The question which arises for consideration is whether the said deposition of Vijay (PW-3) is believable and should be accepted? Is it the true and correct narration of events noticed by him? Having given thoughtful consideration, we are not inclined to accept PW-3’s deposition exonerating the appellant for several reasons, including social and economic pressure, which PW-3 was under. In fact, there is a contradiction in his statement as PW-3 has accepted that he and his brother were asleep, yet to propitiate and absolve his father, he has stated that Asha, his mother, had burnt herself. Affirmatively, contrary to PW-3s deposition, we find that there is no evidence or material to show that the appellant had suffered burn injuries in the intervening night between 5th–6th August, 1998 and had received treatment. Thus, PW-3’s version that his father had opened the door and had tried to extinguish the fire is false and incorrect. Ocular evidence deposed to by other witnesses and the evidence collected from the scene of crime speak and demonstrate involvement of the appellant.

6. On the question of