JUDGMENT :

Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J.

1. The Criminal Appeal (J) No. 4/2018, has been preferred by accused-appellant Smti. Kulsu Bibi, against the judgment and order, dated 22.09.2017, in Session Case No. 88/2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, convicting and sentencing her for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

2. The prosecution case, as appears from the FIR, marked as Ext-2, is that, the deceased Sufiana Begum was married to Sri Sabel Ahmed about 8-9 years back. Thereafter, the deceased resided with the accused persons in her matrimonial house. The accused persons subjected her to torture. At about 4:00 am, on the date of occurrence, the victim sustained burn injuries after she was called by her mother-in-law. She was set on fire, after pouring kerosene over her body, by the accused-persons. This fact was told to the informant by the deceased. On such facts, the PW2 Tajamul Ali lodged the FIR, vide Ext.-2, against the accused persons named therein.

3. On receipt of the FIR through Longai Police Outpost, the Karimganj Police Station registered a case, being Kmj. PS C/N-491/14 under Sections 498-A/307 of the IPC. However, during the course of investigation, the victim died and therefore Section 302 of the IPC was added. The Police investigated into the case, collected evidence, and finally, on completion of investigation, laid the charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. No evidence could be found, during investigation, against the other accused-persons named in the FIR.

4. After exhausting all required formalities, the learned trial court framed a formal charge against the accused-appellant under Sections 498(A)/304-B/302 of the IPC to which she pleaded innocence, and therefore, the trial commenced.

5. To bring home the charge against the accused-appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses who were subjected to cross-examination by the defence. The defence plea is of denial.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In her such statement also, the accused denied the allegations made against her. The defence declined to adduce any evidence.

7. The PW1 IS the Superintendent of the Karimjanj Civil Hospital on 18.07.2014. On that day, Dr. F Karim, PW5, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in the Karimjanj Civil Hospital at about 11:00 am in his presence vide Ext.-1 wherein he had put his signature, as witness, vide Ext. 1(1). Except the suggestion that the dying declaration, vide Ext. 1, was not recorded in his presence and his signature was obtained therein later on, there is no cross-examination of this witness by the defence.

8. The PW2 is the informant. On receipt of the telephonic information about the occurrence i.e., sustaining of burn injuries by the deceased, the deceased was taken to the Hospital by him. He also lodged the FIR, vide Ext. 2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the in-laws had admitted the deceased in the Hospital.

9. The evidence of PW3 is that the deceased was the wife of her nephew. At the time of occurrence, she heard the deceased's father-in-law screaming. She went out and found that the deceased's father-in-law was uttering the words "agun lagiche (caught by fire). She went to the place of occurrence after about half an hour and saw the deceased with burn injuries. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and subjected her to cross-examination. In her cross-examination by the prosecution, she denied that she had stated before the Police that, on 18.07.2014 at about 4:00 am, while she went to the house of Sabel Ahmed, she saw the deceased engulfed in fire in the kitchen and the deceased told her that her mother-in-law had set her on fire by pouring kerosene over