The reliance on credible dying declarations supported by corroborative evidence confirms conviction for murder despite initial contradictory statements.

1. The appellant, who was the sole accused in SC No. 53 of 2000 on the file of the Tribunal Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, was tried for the offences under S.498(A) and S.302, IPC, but was convicted only under S.302, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.

2. The facts in brief are as follows :
"(a) The accused is the husband of the deceased Uma Maheshwari. PW 1 is the father of the deceased. PW 2 is the wife of the younger brother of PW 1, who hailed from Kamampattu village. The deceased and the accused got married on 3-10-1996 and they were living in the house of PW 1 for some time. The accused wanted to live separately, for which, PW 1 was not willing and objected to it, over which, dispute arose between the husband and wife, which resulted in filing a complaint at All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.
(b) PW 10, Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai, who received the complaint from the deceased, registered the same in Petition Register No. 106 of 1997, Ex.P6, and after enquiry, on an assurance by the accused that he will neither scold nor beat the deceased, she sent them after advising them with warning. Thereafter the deceased and the accused were living together at the residence of the accused.
(c) The motive of the occurrence is said to be that the accused urged his wife very often for getting money to meet his expenses and also wanted to sell the land of 50 cents gifted by the father of the deceased and bring the money of Rs. 60,000/- after selling the property. It is alleged that the father of the deceased PW 1 has gifted the land to the deceased with a condition, that after the life of the deceased, the children of the deceased will have the absolute right over such property. Since the deceased had no issues, the accused wanted the deceased to sell the property and bring the money.
(d) On 3-10-1999 the accused wanted to pledge the vessels for which the deceased was not willing. When the deceased has returned from her work the accused wanted some money to purchase egg. When such demand was denied, the accused has set fire on the deceased after pouring the kerosene at 7.30 p.m. on the same day.
(e) Immediately the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai, by the sisters of the accused and she was admitted in the Government Hospital at 8.45 p.m. by DW 1 to whom, at the time of admission the deceased has stated that she sustained injuries at 8.00 p.m. in her residence due to stove burst and an intimation was sent to the Vettavalam Police Station.
(f) PW 12, Inspector of Police, Vettavalam Police Station received the intimation at 11.45 a.m. on 4-10-99 and immediately went to the Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai and recorded the statement of the deceased, Ex. P9, and registered a case in Cr. No. 254 of 1999 under S.498(A) and S.307, IPC and prepared FIR, Ex.P10. He took up the investigation and reached the scene of occurrence at 3 p.m. and in the presence of PW 5 and one Rajendran he prepared Ex. P1, Observation Mahazar and rough sketch Ex. P11. He went to the Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai and examined the deceased and the witnesses PW 1, PW 2 and one Ramalingam, and Elavarasi and recorded their statements. On the same day at 7.30 p.m., he arrested the accused and a confession given by the accused was recorded in the presence of PW 6 and one Maria Joseph. On that basis, he has recovered MO 1 to 3