Point of Law:
When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rajarshi Gupta learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), U.P. at Basti in Sessions Trial No.141 of 2007 (State of U.P. Vs. Kismata @ Krishnawati & others), whereby appellant Ravi Pratap Singh @ Tinku son of Mukhtar Singh has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced with life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-with the condition that in case of non-deposit of fine, the appellant has to undergo additional sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment.

3. The prosecution story has been unfolded with the first information report lodged on 02.01.2007 at about 19.30 hours. It was a written report given by the brother of victim Sunita @ Babbi, daughter of Sri Shyam Narayan Singh. It is stated therein that victim Sunita @ Babbi was got married to Jai Prakash Singh son of Mukhtar Singh on 16.05.2005. While Jai Prakash Singh was employed in Delhi, victim resided in her marital home with her in-laws at the village. During the marriage ceremony, sufficient dowry had been given by the father of the victim, but Jai Prakash Singh and his family members were dissatisfied and adamant on their demand for a car in the dowry. One month after the marriage, Sunita came to her parent's house and told them that her in-laws (father and mother-in-law, sister and brothers in-law) were pressing their demand for a car in the dowry. The victim told her parents that in case their demand was not fulfilled, it would be difficult for her to live in her marital home. Somehow, family members of the victim had persuaded her to go back to her marital house. The victim, however, was being tortured both physically and mentally by her in-laws on account of non-fulfillment of their demand. The victim also pleaded her husband to take her alongwith him to Delhi, but he also stated that unless the demand is fulfilled, he would not take her alongwith him.

4. The victim narrated her ordeal to her family members whenever she came to her parental home. On 25.12.2006, the victim telephoned her brother, the first informant and said that it would not be possible for her to bear the torture of her in-laws furthermore and if he wanted to see her alive, the demand of car had to be fulfilled. On hearing this, the first informant alongwith his father, uncle and brother-in-law went to meet her in-laws to persuade them. During the meeting, brothers-in-laws of the victim had misbehaved with the victim party. The victim party somehow had tried their best to convince the father and mother-in-law but all of them remained adamant and told that either they should fulfill their demand or else the girl would suffer.

Being helpless, all of them came back after counseling the girl. On 01.01.2007, at about 11.30 P.M., father-in-law telephonically informed that the victim got burnt due to bursting of the gas cylinder in their house. The first informant told him to take the victim to the District Hospital, Basti and that they would also reach there soon. It is then averred that father-in-law of the victim got her admitted in the District Hospital, Basti and left. Upon asking the reason for the accident, victim Sunita told that while she was sleeping after dinner, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law Sannu poured kerosene oil upon her and when she tried to escape, her father-in-law and one brother-in-law caught hold of her and another brother-in-law (the appellant) lit the matchsticks and set her on fire. It is then narrated in the written report that the Doctor in the District Hospital had referred the victim to Lucknow because of her critical condition. The father, uncle and other relatives of the victim took her to Lucknow for treatment and that she was still in a critical condition. On the said report being lodged by Manoj Kumar Singh, brother of the victim, the chik FIR was