1. This appeal preferred under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of conviction for the offences under section 498A IPC r/w 304B IPC and order of sentence for said offences for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation and imprisonment of life respectively.

2. In short, prosecution case is that on 16.3.2008 wife of appellant was admitted in burnt condition in District Hospital, Mandla for treatment. Dr. Mahendra Teja (PW9) examined her and provided her the treatment. Her dying declaration Exh. P-1 was recorded by Executive Magistrate Shri Abdul Haque (PW/12). After her death, Dr. Teja sent her report Exh. P-13 on 17.3.2008 to Police Station, Mandla. In turn, Marg Intimation Exh. P-24 under section 174 CrPC was registered and 'panchnama' of the body (Exh. P-21) was prepared. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. A. Hussain (PW14). The burnt clothes and other material were seized from the spot (Exh. P-16). A spot map was prepared by the Patwari. The seized material/clothes etc. were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar and its report Exh. P-29 was produced before the Court below. The challan was filed and accused was charged under sections 498A and 304B of IPC. Since accused pleaded innocence and urged that he was falsely implicated, he was put to trial.

3. The Court below framed five points for decision and came to hold that prosecution was successful in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of offences under sections 498A and 304B of IPC.

4. Shri Ayush Choubey, learned Amicus Curiae urged that the FIR was lodged after two days from the date of incident. Thus, in view of ILR 2009 MP 2671 (Mangal Singh and others v. State of M.P.), the story of prosecution is unbelievable. Shri Choubey has taken pains to contend that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is totally unsafe to rely on the dying declaration. He urged that admittedly there was no eye witness to the incident. The dying declaration cannot be relied upon because it was allegedly recorded when indisputably Seema had suffered 90% burn injuries. He relied on the statement of Tulsiram (PW4) who deposed that Seema after the incident of burning became unconscious and remained unconscious till her death. He also relied the statement of Dr. A. Hussain PW14 who, on a suggestion, opined that he cannot tell about the reason of death. Death may be for either reason namely suicidal or homicidal. Shri Choubey read out the dying declaration of Seema Bai reproduced in para 21 of impugned judgment and urged that the answer to question No.2 and question No.3 shows that there exists a serious inconsistency which indicates that Seema was not in a fit state of mind. In this backdrop, her dying declaration cannot be relied upon.

5. Per conta, Shri Mohit Naik, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment. He urged that the judgment of Court below is based on the basis of cogent evidence led by the prosecution. The prosecution has successfully established its case. There is no procedural impropriety in the decision making process nor there exists any perversity in the findings given in the impugned judgment.

6. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

7. We have bestowed out anxious consideration on the rival contentions and perused the record.

8. In view of conjoint reading of the evidence led by prosecution witnesses and statement of defence/appellant recorded under section 313 CrPC, it is not in dispute that Seema Bai died within seven years of her marriage with present appellant. Punnulal (PW1) relative of Seema Bai deposed that there were consistent demand of dowry by the appellant. Appellant was in the habit of consuming liquor and used to beat Seema Bai. He further deposed that once the appellant assaulted Seema Bai even in his presence. The appellant used to misbehave with Seema Bai for the reason that adequate