PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.1986 passed by the Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No.172 of 1985 (State Vs. Janardan Dube & Ors.), convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment.

2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Smt. Madalsa, wife of accused no.2, Rakesh Kumar. Their marriage was solemnized on 08.12.1980 and she died on 12.11.1983 in the hospital after sustaining 100% burn injury. It is said that on 11.11.1983 at about 8:00 am, all the three accused persons poured kerosene oil on the deceased and set her ablaze. Injured Smt. Madalsa was immediately taken to hospital where, on 12.11.1983, she succumbed to her injuries. The incident is said to have been witnessed by a child witness-Nisha (PW-2), who at the relevant time was aged about 8½ years.

3. On the basis of a written report (Taharir)-Ex. Ka.3, lodged by (PW-1) Satya Narain Misra, FIR-Ex.Ka.4 was registered on 13.11.1983 against three accused persons under Section 302 of IPC. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted, vide Ex. Ka.9 on 12.11.1983 and the body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 13.11.1983, vide Ex. Ka.13 by PW-5, Dr S K Srivastava. As per autopsy surgeon, following injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased:

"I, II, III degree burns present all over the body except both legs, feet & sores. Whole of the back involved in burn injury."

As per autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of the deceased was due to excessive burns and shock as a result of fluid loss.

4. While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed the charge against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of IPC. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined six witnesses and two defence witnesses have also been examined. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr PC, where they pleaded their innocence and false implication.

5. By the impugned judgment, all the three accused persons have been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

6. During pendency of this appeal, accused no.2-Rakesh Kumar, husband of the deceased, has expired and this appeal confines only in respect of accused no.1-Janardan Dube and accused no.3-Smt. Premwati, i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.

7. Counsel for the appellants submits:

(i) that the accused persons have been convicted solely on the basis of statement of a child witness (PW-2) Nisha; she appears to be a planted witness and her testimony is not reliable and her statement does not inspire the confidence of this Court;

(ii) that the presence of the child witness (PW-2)-Nisha appears to be a bit unnatural and likewise, her version that she saw the accused persons setting the deceased ablaze, appears to be doubtful. No specific role has been assigned to any individual accused and only general allegations have been made against them that all of them have set the deceased ablaze;

(iii) that the so called oral dying declaration made by the deceased before (PW-3) Praduman Kumar Misra is doubtful because as per (PW-2) Nisha, the said dying declaration was made by the deceased in her in-laws house where the incident occurred, whereas as per PW-3, it appears that the said dying declaration was made at Kanpur in the hospital;

(iv) that in the inquest which has been duly signed by (PW-3) Praduman Kumar Misra, it has come that PW-3 had merely shown suspicion on the accused persons, whereas as per prosecution case, the deceased made oral dying declaration before PW-3 that she was burnt by the accused persons. Had any dying declaration been made by the deceased before PW-3, in the inquest itself PW-3 ought to have disclosed this fact that it is the accused persons who have burnt the deceased;

(v) that whatever has been recorded in the inquest has been done by the Investigating Officer and none of