ascertain the capacity of Mallika to make such a statement. Going by Ext.P3 and the deposition of PW4, we are inclined to believe that Mallika has made Ext.P3 dying declaration, implicating the appellant. By the evidence of PW5, the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination and issued Ext.P4 certificate, it is proved that Mallika died of burn injuries. The evidence on record, thus, would unerringly point to the role of the accused in the commission of the crime, which led to the death of Mallika. We agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the defence evidence lacks credence. DW1 claims that he did not ask anyone as to how Mallika sustained burn injuries. The same is against normal human conduct. If he had come to the scene, he would have immediately enquired, how the incident took place. So, we have no hesitation to hold that the version of DW1 cannot be believed. The same is the case of DW2. He has deposed that he saw the appellant, coming to the house, along with his children, immediately after the incident. But, later, in his crossexamination, he deposed that the children were in the house, at the time of the incident. His case that Mallika had told his wife, who is no more, that the appellant is not responsible for the incident, cannot be believed. Both the defence witnesses have spoken to about the
