JUDGMENT

Paul, J. -- 1. This appeal filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short “Cr.P.C”) calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of judgment dated 30.04.1996 passed in Sessions Case No.609/1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, whereby, the appellant is held guilty for committing offence under section 302 of the IPC and is directed to undergo sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

2. As per the prosecution story, deceased Sumanbai was a keep of appellant and was residing with the appellant. On 4.12.1993, Sumanbai was unwell. The appellant came to his house at 2 O’ clock and demanded food from Sumanbai. Sumanbai told him that food is ready and he can take and serve the food on his own. The appellant got annoyed and in order to kill the deceased, poured Kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. Sumanbai made an effort to save herself by leaving the place of incident but appellant forcibly caught hold of her because of which, certain burn injuries were caused to the appellant as well.

3. Because of said incident, certain portion of the body of the deceased were badly burnt. B.D.Jaishwara, Sub-Inspector, Police Chowki, Khitola received an information on telephone and in turn, reached the place of incident. He recorded the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/11) on the same day. Sumanbai was taken to Dr. A.K. Rai in Government Hospital, Sihora pursuant to memorandum Ex.P/2-A. Dr. Rai examined the injuries of Sumanbai and prepared his report Ex.P/2. After providing first aid to Sumanbai, she was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur. The appellant was also medically examined and for this purpose, a memorandum Ex/P.1-A was prepared and he was sent to Government Hospital, Sihora. Dr. A.K. Rai, examined the injuries of deceased and prepared the report Ex.P/1.

4. Dr. A.K. Rai, examined the physical and mental state of Sumanbai and recorded it in the dying declaration (Ex.P/3) that she is in the fit state of mind. The Executive Magistrate Shri S.S. Kamale (PW-7) recorded the dying declaration of Sumanbai. Sumanbai was sent to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur for further treatment. In Victoria Hospital, Sumanbai died. On the same day, information thereof was given to Police Station Omti, Jabalpur and accordingly ‘Merg’ Intimation (Ex.P/19) was prepared. The Panchnama of dead body (Ex.P/10) was prepared. The body of Sumanbai was sent for Post Mortem through Ex.P/18-A.

5. Dr. A.K. Jain, (PW-12) conducted the autopsy and prepared P.M. report through Ex.P/18. During the course of investigation, the statement of witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and in due course, matter came to the Sessions Court. The appellant abjured the guilt. Learned Court below framed seven questions for its determination. After recording the statement of prosecution witnesses and hearing the parties, the impugned judgment was passed, conclusion thereof is already mentioned in the first para of this judgment.

Submission of the appellant’s Counsel.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is attacking the impugned judgment solely on the ground that conviction of appellant is based on dying declaration. The dying declaration alone is not sufficient to hold the appellant as guilty. The other prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution story. There is no eye-witness to the incident.

7. To elaborate, learned counsel for the appellant has placed heavy reliance on the dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate on 4.12.1993 (Ex.P/3).

8. It is submitted that in the dying declaration deceased, Suman Bai had categorically mentioned that she was set on fire by ‘Newari’ whereas name of present appellant is Prakash Kumar ‘Mewari’. It is strenuously contended by Shri Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of mentioning the complete name of the accused person alongwith his address, the appellant cannot