Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General.

2. The facts of the care are as follows:

The appellant was the accused before the Court below in the following circumstances. The appellant was said to be in relationship with the complainant–deceased Gandrabai. It transpires that the accused had seen Lalsab Mull visiting Gandrabai on 24th April 2008 at about 9.00 p.m. in Nimbal village and the accused was angry and suspected the complainant of having a relationship with Lalsab Mull. It further transpires that he had immediately visited the complainant and had picked-up a quarrel and accused her of having an affair with Lalsab Mull and immediately set her ablaze by pouring kerosene on her and she had sustained serious injuries. She was admitted to hospital only on the next day at about 2.30 p.m. The complainant Gandrabai Siddram Badiger was a resident of Nimbal village. She had deserted her husband as he was suspecting her fidelity; she had two daughters and one son by the said marriage, and they were all residing with her husband. Her husband is said to have died and the two daughters also said to be dead. Subsequently, she had developed a relationship with one Dhareppa Biradar from Nimbal and Dhareppa Biradar, in turn, having died, the complainant started relationship with the accused Nagappa Waddar.

3. It is in this background that the accused seeing Lalsab Mull who had visited her, according to the complainant to ask her to come for coolie work, however, the accused had mistaken the incident as to there being an illicit relationship between the complainant and Lalsab Mull, and therefore, had set her ablaze on the night of 24th April 2008 at about 9.00 p.m.

4. As a result, the complainant had sustained injuries to her face, back and legs. It transpires that one Babu Biradar and Nabi Inamdar had shifted her to hospital, and thereafter, on receiving information of the incident, the Police Officer-PW.16 had recorded her statement as to the manner in which the incident had taken place which was duly certified by a medical practitioner who was providing her treatment, and thereafter, the Gandrabai who had suffered 80% burn injuries, is said to have succumbed to the injuries. It is on the basis of the said complaint, which was treated as a dying declaration, that the accused had been arrested and after further proceedings and on committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charges had been framed against him to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution had then examined 33 witnesses and had marked several exhibits and material objects on the basis of which, the Court below had framed the following point for consideration.

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased Gandhrabai having illicit relationship with the accused, the accused having came to know that CW.18 Lalsab Mulla had gone to the house of deceased taking a suspicious that deceased is having illicit relation with the CW.18, on 24.4.2008 at about 21.00 hours in the house of deceased Gandhrabai, situated at Nimbal the accused committed a murder intentionally causing the death of Gandhrabai by pouring kerosene on her and setting ablaze and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC?”

5. The court below had answered the point in the affirmative and convicted the appellant to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would point that all the witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution except the official witnesses-PW.14 the Medical Officer who had provided treatment; PW.16 the Investigating Officer; and PW.19 the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem of the body, who have supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore, the law, as laid down by the Supreme court insofar as the dying declarat