P.V Hardas, J.:— The appellant, who is convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, by the 5th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, by Judgment dated 9.5.2006, in Sessions Trial No. 156/2005, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence.

2. The facts, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus:—

P.W.9 P.S.I, Ravrale, who was attached to Boregaon Manju Police Station as a P.S.I, on 4.9.2005 received message about admission of injured Sarswatibai in the Hospital. Upon receipt of the information, he immediately proceeded to the Hospital and contacted the Medical Officer and requested him to ascertain if Sarswatibai was in a fit and proper condition to give her statement. Thereafter, P.W 9 P.S.I, Ravrale questioned Sarswatibai and satisfied himself that Sarswatibai was in a fit condition to give her statement. He, accordingly, asked the relatives of Sarswatibai to remove themselves from the ward and recorded the statement of Sarswatiabi at Exh. 24. In the statement at Exh. 24, Sarswatibai had stated that she was married to the appellant on 17.6.2005 She was residing with the appellant in a rented room in Ramji Nagar, Borgaon. She states that on the day of the incident i.e on 4.9.2005 at about 6.00 in the morning she had gone to answer nature's call and on her return the appellant had questioned her as to why she was late in returning home. The appellant then assaulted her with fist and kicks. Sarswatibai stated that the appellant was suspecting her fidelity. Sarswatibai tried to convince her husband but the appellant took a kerosene lamp and poured kerosene from the lamp on Sarswatibai and set her ablaze by lighting a match stick. Sari of Sarswatibai caught fire and the appellant thereafter poured water on Sarswatibai. Sarswatibai states that she had attempted to catch the appellant and in the process the hands of the appellant were burnt. She further stated that neighbours then extinguished the fire and admitted her in the Government Hospital.

3. On the basis of the said report of Sarswatibai at Exh. 24, offence was registered against the appellant vide Crime No. 129/05 under Section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The printed F.I.R is at Exh. 25. Further investigation was then handed over to P.W 10 P.S.I, Mali.

4. In the meanwhile, P.W.7 Pralhad Gedam - Naib Tahsildar, who was working at Akola, received a memo from the Police on 4.9.2005 at about 12.15 in the afternoon for recording the dying declaration. He, accordingly, proceeded to the General Hospital at Akola and contacted the Medical Officer and requested him to ascertain if the injured was in a fit condition to give her statement. The Medical Officer examined Sarswatibai and

5. P.W.10 P.S.I, Mali, who was also attached to the Police Station, Borgaon Manju, received the case diary of the said crime confirmed that Sarswatibai was in a fit condition to give her statement. An endorsement was, accordingly, put on the paper on which dying declaration was to be scribed. The statement of Sarswatibai was thereafter recorded by P.W.7 Gedam at Exh. 19. The thumb impression of Sarswatibai was also obtained on the dying declaration of Sarswatibai at Exh. 19. In the dying declaration, Sarswatibai has stated that on the day of the incident, she had gone to answer the nature's call at 6.00 in the morning. On her return, the appellant had questioned her as to why she was late and thereafter assaulted her with fist and kick blows. The appellant then poured kerosene on her from a small lamp and set her ablaze. Sarswatibai shouted for help and thereafter the appellant poured water on Sarswatiabi. The mother and other neighbours of Sarswatibai, admitted her in the Hospital. The aforesaid statement commenced at 12.30 and concluded at 12.45 p.m on 4.9.2005 The Medical Officer then put his endorsement on conclusion of the statement that Sarswatibai was unconscious while recording her statement. for investigation. He proceeded to the scene of the incident and drew the scene of the incident panchanama at Exh. 13-A in presence of the panchas. From the scene of the incident, certain articles came to be seized under the seizure memo at Exh. 14. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the accused under arrest panchanama at Exh.27 At the time of arrest, the fingers of the accused were found to have sustained burns and the accused was, therefore, forwarded for medical examination. The seized property was thereafter referred to the chemical analyser along with requisition at Exh. 28. On account of demise of Sarswatibai, section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added. Further to the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet against the appellant was submitted.

6. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the trial Court, vide Exh. 2, framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. The defence of the appellant is of denial. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated.

7. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced before us by Shri N.A Badar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri A.S Fulzele, the learned A.P.P, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

8. P.W.9 Ravrale states about recording the statement of Sarswatibai at Exh. 24. In cross-examination, he has admitted that if the injured is brought at the Police Station and if the injured is not serious, then usually the Police record the statement of the injured. If the injured is serious, the injured is referred to the Hospital. He has admitted that he had taken an entry in the station diary about his visit to the Hospital. He has admitted that he had started for the Hospital at 7.30 a.m but does not recollect as to when he had reached the Hospital. He has admitted that Sarswatibai was admitted in the ladies ward but does not recollect the number of the ward. He could not state the exact time, which was required for recording the statement of Sarswatibai. He could not recollect the name of the Medical Officer who was present in the ward. He also could not recollect the number of relatives who were present near Sarswatibai. Apart from this, there is practically no cross-examination in respect of recording of the statement of Sarswatibai at Exh. 24.

9. P.W.7 Pralad Gedam-Naib Tahsildar states about recording the dying declaration of Sarswatibai at Exh. 19. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he was not aware as to which doctor had treated Sarswatibai at that time. He has denied the suggestion that he had not introduced himself to Sarswatibai. He has also stated as true that he had not referred in details the questions put by him to Sarswatibai nor to ascertain the condition of Sarswatibai. He has denied the suggestion that dying declaration is not in his hand writing and that he has recorded the dying declaration on the basis of what was told to him by the relatives. Again, apart from this, there is no cross-examination which would discredit the version of both these witnesses.

10. Mr. Badar, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged before us that the recording of the two dying declarations at Exhs. 24 and 19 are shrouded in mysterious circumstances and, therefore, no reliance ought to have been placed by the trial court on the said dying declaration. The learned APP has supported the reliance placed by the trial court on the dying declaration.

11. We have already adverted to the evidence of the two witnesses in detail. Though, both these witnesses have been cross-examined at length, nothing of substance has been elicited in the cross-examination, which would, in any manner, indicate that recording of the dying declaration is shrouded in suspicious circumstances. We do not notice any suspicious or other circumstances which would impel us to discard two written dying declarations. We have noticed an element of consistency in the recitals of both the dying declarations. We, therefore, find no reason to fault the two dying declarations. According to us, both the dying declarations inspire confidence of the court for their acceptance. The prosecution has also examined P.W 6 Doctor Vijay Paunikar who had examined Sarswatibai before her dying declaration at Exh. 19 was recorded. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination, which would, in any manner, lead us to infer that Sarswatibai was not in a fit condition to give her statement.

12. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 Raju a neighbour of Sarswatibai, who states that Sarswatibai had informed him that she had gone to answer the nature's call and was late in coming and the appellant had, therefore, questioned her about it. He has further stated that the appellant assaulted her with kick and fist blows. This witness was then declared hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination has admitted that Sarswatibai had informed him that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. He has also admitted that while his examination-in-chief was recorded, he could not recollect the aforesaid statement. The cross-examination of this witness consists of the suggestions which are denied by him. No dent to his evidence has been created in the cross-examination. Similarly, P.W.2 Gangabai - mother of Sarswaitbai also states about Sarswatibai informing her about going to answer the nature's call and the accused then blaming her and pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze. In cross-examination, she has admitted as true that the income of the accused at Akola was less. She has also admitted that in order to settle them, the accused had decided to shift to Borgaon Manju and was residing there. She has also admitted that prior to the incident, no report had been lodged against the accused. She has admitted that the accused was residing just three houses away from her house. She has admitted that on the day of pola, deceased had come to her house along with the appellant and thereafter both of them returned home. She has admitted that the incident occurred on the next day of pola. She has also admitted that the crowd had gathered in front of the house of the appellant. She has also admitted that Sarswatibai was shouting because of pains. She has denied the suggestion that Sarswatibai was partly unconscious. She has also admitted as true that Sarswatibai had informed her that the accused had tried to extinguish fire by pouring water. She has then admitted in the cross-examination that the police had recorded the statement of deceased Ssarswatibai and Sarswatibai had informed them as to how the incident had occurred.

13. P.W.3 Sindhu Ingole-sister-in-law of Sarswatibai did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. In cross-examination on behalf of the prosecutor, she has admitted that Sarswatibai had informed her that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and had set her ablaze. However, in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused, she has admitted as true that deceased had not told her anything and that she was not personally aware about the incident. In the light of the aforesaid admission, therefore, according to us, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.3 Sindhu. P.W.4 Namdeo a neighbour also states about the deceased informing him that the appellant poured kerosene on deceased and set her ablaze. He has admitted that the appellant was suspecting the character of Sarswatibai and on that day Sarswatibai was late in returning from answering the nature's call and the appellant had blamed her. This witness has been cross-examined and apart from certain suggestions, there is nothing in the cross-examination to doubt the veracity of this witness.

14. We, thus, find that oral dying declaration and the written dying declarations are consistent with each other. There is hardly any material elicited in the cross-examination which would cast any doubt on the veracity of the witnesses. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has proved the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The post mortem on the dead body of Sarswatibai was performed by P.W 8 Doctor Satish Padhan. As per the post mortem report at Exh. 22, Sarswatibai had sustained 60% injuries. The upper limbs both right and left had sustained 6% and 5% respectively. The Medical Officer has opined that the cause of death was due to shock and septicemia due to burn injuries.

15. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that in respect of the written dying declarations at Exhs. 24 and 19, the witnesses have not proved the contents of the written dying declarations. In other words, what has urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the witnesses have not deposed about the contents. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the following judgments.

i) Jivan Tulsiram Dhavali v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 ALL MR. Cri., 2018.

ii) Deorao Sonbaji Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 ALL MR. Cri., 1921.

iii) Faizal Mohammed Abdulla Banaim v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 ALL MR. (cri), 2241.

iv) Laxmibai w/o Maruti Satpute v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 ALL MR (Cri), 182.

v) Unreported Judgment by the Division Bench to which one of us (P.V Hardas, J) is a member in Santosh Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra.

16. Wherein the Division Bench of this Court had held that it was incumbent for the witnesses to depose about the contents of the dying declaration and if the witnesses had not deposed about the contents of the dying declaration, the dying declaration could not be held to have been proved. The aforesaid Judgments, however, are no longer good law in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ramesh Gyanoba Kamble v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011 ALL MR. CRI. 3536, wherein the Full Bench, while overruling the Division Bench Judgment, has held that it was not necessary for the witnesses to prove the contents of the dying declarations. In the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court, therefore, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be considered.

17. Upon consideration of the evidence against the appellant, particularly the written dying declarations and the oral dying declaration, according to us, the prosecution has proved the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

18. There being, thus, no merit in the present appeal, this appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence.