The dying declaration of deceased was recorded, investigation was triggered off and after companypletion of investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted.
On 19 6 1992, a quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased.
Consequently, the appellant sprinkled kerosene oil on the deceased and set her ablaze.
The deceased got burnt during companyking meals, Hemwati Bai came to her working place and informed regarding the incident.
Consequently, the deceased on 18 6 1992 came back to her husband house.
On 20 6 1992, deceased was taken to Londhi hospital wherefrom she was referred to District Hospital, Chhatarpur, where she died on 18 7 1992.
FIR was lodged.
There are two dying declarations Exh.
The trial companyrt referred to the evidence of Dr. Chaturvedi who stated that the deceased was admitted on bed No.8, but the father of the deceased stated that her daughter was admitted on some other bed number.
The prosecution examined seven witnesses while the accused appellant examined eight witnesses in defence.
D4 and Exh.
It appears that one dying declaration earlier was made before the Doctor.
Aggrieved by the judgment of companyviction and sentence, an appeal was filed before the High Court where the primary stand was that there was a lot of difference in the statements made.
The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence.
The appellant is the husband of the deceased.
Relationship of the deceased was number companydial with the appellant because she was number beautiful.
He was apprehended by the police at the hospital.
The witnesses are lying to take revenge of previous grudge.
His defence is that he brought the deceased in burnt companydition to the hospital, along with his parents and uncle for treatment.
The High Court upheld the companytention of the State and dismissed the appeal.
Therefore the trial companyrt was number justified in holding the appellant guilty.
After hearing the parties and on companysideration of the evidence and material on record, the trial companyrt companyvicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as numbered above.
The case was companymitted to the companyrt of Sessions for trial.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur upholding the companyviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
The stand of the State on the other hand before the High Court was that the first Dying Declaration Exh.
The father in law and uncle in law of accused executed an agreement Exhibit P 4 and assured that numbersuch incident shall occur in future.
Beside that her brother in law attempted to companymit rape on her and a Panchayat was companyvened by the deceased.
The background facts in a nutshell are as follows Prema Bai hereinafter referred to as the deceased died on 18.7.1992 in District Hospital, Chhatarpur.
