condition was also not fit to give any statement. It is, thus, submitted that the trial court has erred in placing reliance on the said dying declaration of the deceased. Learned counsel for appellant-applicant has further submitted that from the evidence of prosecution witness Leelawati (PW-8), it is established that the deceased received burn injuries while preparing meal and the appellant-applicant was trying to rescue her and in that process, he has also received injuries. Learned counsel has further submitted that the dying declaration (Ex-1) contains two signatures of the deceased, however, both the signatures are different and from the same, it can be gathered that (Ex-1) is not the dying declaration of the deceased. Learned counsel has further submitted that the trial court, without taking into consideration the fact that the deceased and the appellant-applicant were in intimate relationship from last four years and that there was no motive for the appellant-applicant to kill the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has further submitted that the appellant-applicant is in custody since 6 April, 2018 and, as such, he has served out more than five years of sentence. It is, therefore, prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellantapplicant by the trial court may be suspended.
