JUDGMENT :

Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Gautam Chowdhary, JJ.

(Per Dr. Justice K.J. Thaker, J.)

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 9.3.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Firozabad in Sessions Trial No.616 of 2014 convicting accused-appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment for six months.

2. Factual scenario as culled out from the record and the judgment of the Court below is that the accused-appellant is alleged to have set ablaze the deceased on 9.5.2014 when the accused went to the house of the deceased and demanded sum of Rs.10,000/-and when the deceased refused to give the said amount and requested him to come when her husband was in the house, the accused started abusing her and in his anger, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.

3. On the complaint of the husband of the deceased, First Information Report being No.387 of 2014 was registered under Section 307 of I.P.C. and thereafter, the investigation was moved into motion. After recording statements of various persons, the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet against accused under Sections 302 & 307 of I.P.C.. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom charge sheet was laid put the same before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for the accused, framed charges under Section 302 & 307 of I.P.C..

4. On being read over the charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried, hence, the trial started and the prosecution examined 12 witnesses who are as follows:

5. In support of ocular version following documents were filed:

6. At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as mentioned above.

7. Heard Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vikas Goswami, learned A.G.A-I, assisted by Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava and Sri Janardan Prakash, learned A.G.As. for the State and perused the record.

8. It is submitted that the deceased in her first dying declaration mentioned that the accused poured kerosene and set her ablaze and then poured water on her, and that people started coming in and, her husband, after he came back from service, brought her to the hospital. Her statement was recorded at 7.12 p.m. on 9.5.2014 namely on the date of incident.

9. Learned counsel has thereafter taken us to the depositions of other witnesses who are hostile witnesses. Be that as it may, the main crux on which submission is made by Sri Yogesh Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant are that the deceased died out of burn injuries after six days, there are multiple dying declarations which give different version. The medical evidence according to the counsel for the appellant shows that she died due to septicemic shock and, therefore, it is submitted that looking to the F.I.R. and the dying declarations, it cannot be said that the deceased was done to death and she was mu