MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13/10/2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aklera, District Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 60/2011, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that First Information Report (Ex. P12) was lodged with Police Station Bhalta District Jhalawar at 7.30 P.M. on 20.05.2011, on the basis of Parcha Bayan of deceased Prem Bai @ Nani Bai w/o Devi Singh Tanwar. In the Parcha Bayan, she stated that in the morning i.e. on 19.05.2011 at about 9-10 AM, while she was cooking food, she told her husband Dev Singh to return her silver bracelets which he had taken about 8 days ago on the pretext that he would get the same remodelled and thereafter return. On this, accused Dev Singh became infuriated and threatened to teach her a lesson. He did not stop at that and lifted the five litre Jeriken lying nearby. It contained kerosene. He poured the same her body (Prem Bai @ Nani Bai) and lit fire with match box. She made hue and cry upon which Nanda Tanwer (PW4), Kallu Tanwer (PW11), Nanu Tanwer (PW6) and many other villagers came to rescue her. She was taken to Government Dispensary of Bakani in a Maruti of Gabba Tanwar (PW10) by Devi Singh, Kallu, Nanda Tanwar and thereafter she was taken to Government Hospital, Jhalawar, for treatment. It was further alleged by her that on previous Deepawali, quarrel had taken place between her and her husband and her husband caused injuries to her but at that time, the matter was sorted out with the intervention of the village panchayat and they again started living together peacefully. But thereafter the accused again started scolding her. It was also alleged that her husband poured kerosene on her body with the intention to kill her.

3. On 30.05.2011, Prem Bai died due to burn injuries and the police therefore added Section 302 IPC in the case pending investigation. After completion of the investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC before the trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused-appellant. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. Defence produced only one witness Heeralal (DW1) and did not exhibit any document. Learned trial court after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above. Hence this appeal:

4. Mr. Mayank Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there are discrepancies and variations in the allegations against the appellant made in Parcha Bayan (Ex. P11), recorded at 7.00 P.M. on 19.05.2011, as also in dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (Ex. P31) on 20.05.2011 at 7.00 P.M. and again her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Investigating Officer on 24.05.2011. Incident had taken place at 8.00 AM, which is evident from Roznamcha (Ex. P10) entered at 1.15 P.M. dated 19.05.2011, Parcha Bayan was recorded belatedly and thereafter FIR has been lodged with still more delay at 7.30 P.M. on 20.05.2011. In the meantime, mother and father of the deceased had come to the hospital. It is on their instigation, especially the mother, that deceased made allegation against accused. Learned counsel argued that the deceased in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. P14) recorded by the Investigation Officer on 24.05.2011, categorically stated that when she poured kerosene in clay hearth to ignite the same, this gave sudden spurt to the fire, as a result of which her clothes caught fire. She cried for help. Two girls namely Krishna Bai (PW 7) and Malika Bai (PW 8) who were cousins of her husband were also s