1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.1.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, District - Nashik in Sessions Case No.26/2015. The Appellant was convicted for commission of the offence punishable under S.302 of IPC. He was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer SI for six months. The Appellant was granted set off under S.428 of CrPC from that date.

2. Heard Ms.Devyani Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Vinit Kulkarni, learned APP for the Respondent State.

3. The prosecution case is that the Appellant was married to his wife Anita. They were residing together with their ten month old daughter. In the night between 19th and 20th November, 2014, the Appellant came to the house. He was intoxicated. He began quarreling with his wife Anita. He poured kerosene on her and threw a kerosene lamp on her thereby setting her on fire. He then went away from the spot. She raised shouts. The neighbours gathered there. They poured water on her. One of the neighbours was examined during the trial. In the morning, her uncle came to her village. He took her to a hospital at Niphad Municipal Corporation Hospital. The police were informed. The Naib Tahsildar went to the hospital and recorded her statement. He was followed by API Patil who also recorded her statement. She clearly implicated the Appellant for having committed that act. The FIR was registered vide C.R. No.142/2014 at Pimpalgaon police station under S.307 of IPC on 20.11.2014 at about 7.30 p.m.. The investigation started. The Appellant's wife had suffered 45% burn injuries. She survived till 27.11.2014 and expired due to septicemia. The postmortem examination was conducted. After the investigation was over, the charge - sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined a neighbour who had poured water on the deceased, the Naib Tahsildar who had recorded the dying declaration, API Patil who had recorded another dying declaration, her relative who had taken her to the hospital, the medical officer who had conducted the postmortem examination and the investigating officer.

5. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial. According to him, the deceased was not going for work. She set herself on fire and he was falsely implicated

6. Learned Judge relied on the entire evidence led by the prosecution. He disbelieved the defence of the Appellant.

7. PW - 2 Chandrabhaga Sahale was a neighbour. She deposed that the deceased and the Appellant were residing next to her house. The incident took place at about 12.30 a.m. in the midnight. PW - 2 was sleeping in her house. She heard the shouts from the Appellant's house. She and others rushed there. She saw that Anita had suffered burn injuries. The other neighbours Nita and Sachin Kadale came there. Then all of them poured water on Anita and extinguished the fire. According to her, at that time, the Appellant was not there. She has further deposed that she made enquiry with Anita; who told her that, the Appellant had poured kerosene on her and had set her on fire. Anita's maternal uncle took Anita to the hospital.
In the cross - examination only the suggestions were put to her that she was not telling the truth. She denied those suggestions. She also admitted that she had not called the police of Pimpalgaon police station after the incident

8. PW - 5 Shravan Rajole was Anita's relative. He deposed that he knew the Appellant and that Anita was his relative. He stated that he took Anita to the Rural Hospital, Niphad. The police had not recorded his statement. There was no cross - examination of this witness. In any case, there is hardly any dispute that Anita was taken to the hospital.

9. PW - 1 Dr. Mahesh Khairkar had conducted the postmortem examination. The postmortem notes were produced on record at Exhibit - 12. He deposed that he conducted the postmortem examination on