JUDGMENT :

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.

The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 05/2009 (State v. Meetha Ram,) whereby the accused-appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. by extending benefit of doubt but was convicted and sentenced as under:—

2. The prosecution story emanates from a written report (Ex. P/1) filed by Bhera (P.W. 1) at the Police Station Sayra, District Udaipur on 11.10.2008 at 8.15 P.M. wherein it was stated that his daughter Smt. Vanki Bai was married to Meetha for last four years. Meetha was staying in the close vicinity of his house. The couple had a year old daughter. On 11.10.2008 at around 6:00 P.M., he heard shrieks coming from the house of his daughter. He rushed towards the house of his daughter and when he reached there, his daughter told him that Meetha had poured kerosene over her body and set her afire. He and his wife Mugali saw the clothes of their daughter Vanki aflame and by putting the blanket, they tried to douse the fire. When they reached the house of their daughter, their son-in-law was present but immediately thereafter, he ran away from the place of occurrence. He, thus, alleged that his son-in-law tried to kill his daughter by burning.

3. On the basis of this written report, a formal F.I.R. No. 168/2008 (Ex. P/11) was registered at Police Station Sayra, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 498-A & 307 of I.P.C. against the accused and the investigation was commenced. The victim Vanki Bai died while undergoing treatment and therefore, the police added Section 302 I.P.C. in the matter and arrested the accused-appellant on 12.10.2008.

4. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 498-A & 302 I.P.C.

5. Learned tried court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 498-A & 302 I.P.C. to the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited documents from Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/19 in support of its case.

7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial, which he denied and stated that during the incident, when Vanki sustained the bum injuries, he was at Marwar for his labour work and he was informed of the same by his family members. When he returned home, he came to know that his wife had sustained burn injuries. The accused-appellant got D.W. 1 - Bhera s/o Kala examined in his defence.

8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, acquitted the accused-appellant of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. by extending him the benefit of doubt but convicted and sentenced him as above vide judgment dated 22.02.2011. Hence this appeal.

9. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has fervently argued that there is no reliable evidence available against the accused-appellant so as to convict him for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The dying declaration (Ex. P/17) is not reliable and the same was not recorded after getting the certificate of fitness from the duty doctor concerned and, therefore, the same is required to be discarded. He further contends that PW-1 Bhera and PW-4 Smt. Mugali Bai who are father and mother o