Swatanter Kumar, J. -- 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9th February, 1998 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh and affirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur, vide its judgment dated 7th August, 2007.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal fall within a very narrow compass and are being stated at the veryoutset. Bhajju @ Karan Singh, the appellant herein, was married to Medabai, the deceased, and was living in Niwadi, District Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh. Bhajju had doubts about the chastity of his wife and often used to accuse her of having illicit relations with one Ramdas. According to the appellant, she also had a lose temper and on one occasion, she had left their one month old child on a platform and had gone to her parental house along with her son, Harendra, aged about four years. It is stated that he had even reported this incident at the Police Station, Niwadi, on 2nd September, 1995. On the other hand, the prosecution has alleged that besides accusing the deceased of having illicit relations, he used to ill-treat her and even question the paternity of the children born out of the wedlock. In fact, on the evening before the incident in question, he had beaten his wife with slipper. On 12th September, 1995, at about 7:00 a.m., when she was cleaning the kitchen, Bhajju poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze with the help of a match stick. She raised hue and cry. Ayub (PW3) and Pratap (PW2) from the neighbourhood reached the spot. They took her to the hospital in the taxi where she was examined by Dr. Suresh Sharma (PW9), vide report Ex.P-14. Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P-16 was recorded on the basis of which FIR Ex.14 was recorded and a case was registered under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC). She was admitted to the hospital and was found to be having 60 per cent burn injuries and her blouse was smelling of kerosene oil at that time. Her dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate-cum-Tehsildar at about 9:10 a.m. vide Ex.P-4. She succumbed to the burn injuries and died on 17th October, 1995. A case under section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant-accused. After registration of the case, the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report. Post-mortem was performed and the cause of death was opined to be extensive burn injuries. During the investigation, statements of other witnesses including Pratap, Ayub and Lakhanpal (PW1) were recorded and the site plan was prepared. Certain items were recovered from the site like broken bangles, match box, half burnt match sticks, clothes of the deceased, kerosene oil container, etc. Based on the ocular and documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The appellant-accused was committed to the Court of Sessions where he was tried. The appellant put up the defence that because of her illicit relationship with Ramdas, their neighbour, and her arrogant attitude, the deceased was a difficult person to live with. However, on 12.9.1995, she accidentally caught fire and got burnt while she was preparing the food. As a result, she died and the accused was innocent. Disbelieving the defence of the accused and forming an opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under section 302 IPC and awarded him rigorous imprisonment for life vide his judgment dated 9th February, 1998. This was challenged before the High Court. The High Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the appellant-accused, giving rise to the present appeal.

3. Not only the facts of this case but also the legal issues involved herein fall in a narrow compass. It is for the reason that the incident in question is not dis