Kalidas Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1991 sentencing thereby the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim Smt. Minati Pandit made a statement which was recorded as an F.I.R. It has been alleged therein that on 03.9.1989 at 8.30 a.m. she was engaged in cooking and at that time the accused Lalpari Pandit wife of Surya Pandit, the next door neighbour arrived in front of the gate of the house of the victim and started abusing her in filthy language over the issue of putting cow -dung cakes over the wall of Rampuria Math. She protested and there was quarrel between them. During that quarrel Lalpari threatened the victim that she will teach her a lesson. The husband of the victim arrived there and the victim was taken inside the house. When the victim became busy with cooking, Lalpari Pandit again came from behind and poured kerosene oil over her and set her on fire using a match. As a result, her wearing apparels caught fire and she started shouting. Hearing the shouts her husband arrived there and put out the fire by pouring water. The victim sustained burn injuries and her husband took her to hospital. It has been alleged that Lalpari Pandit poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire with the intention to kill her. After recording the statement of the victim in the hospital, the Hooghly P.S. Case No. 281 dated 03.9.1989 was started. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted.
(2.) The charges were framed under Ss. 448 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In this case the prosecution examined as many as 13 P.Ws. including the husband of the victim, the neighbours and the police officers. Defence examined one witness, namely, Biplab Roy (D.W. 1). The learned Trial Judge after considering the materials on record passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence holding that Lalpari murdered the victim Minati Pandit with cool brain by pouring kerosene oil on her body from the back side and setting her on fire. It has further been observed that the victim sustained serious burn injuries on her body and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. It was further observed by the learned Trial Judge that Lalpari intentionally inflicted the burn injuries with the intention to kill her as she gave out during the altercation that she would teach her a lesson. The learned Trial Judge further observed that the dying declaration was a piece of good evidence and could not be disbelieved under any circumstance.
(3.) Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the appellant, has taken us through the evidence of P.Ws. Mr. Roy contends that the alleged dying declaration recorded by the Medical Officer suffers from serious infirmities, inasmuch as, there is no certificate of the doctor that at the time of making the statement the victim was in a position to make such statement. Mr. Roy contends that the attending nurse who has been examined as P.W. 6 was declared hostile and her evidence did not support the recording of the dying declaration.;