682 Balamurali Muthusamy v. PP [2010] 3 MLRA lead to a successful suicide, surely the same principle and argument would apply to the deceased persons. [22] After a maximum evaluation of the evidence we found no fault with the eventual decision of the learned judge (Balachandran v. PP [2004] 2 MLRA 123; [2005] 2 MLJ 301; [2005] 1 CLJ 85; [2005] 1 AMR 321 ). We saw the flow of evidence in the following manner. The appellant started his quest by procuring petrol, had a lighter ready and then deliberately entering the house to carry out his dark deeds. He then sought out the deceased persons in that house. A reliable view of what actually happened in the house could be gauged from P14 ie, the s. 112 statement of the Criminal Procedure Code statement, recorded from Komathi by SP10. The latter when recording this statement testified that Komathi was fully conscious and had comprehended what was asked of her though in a dire strait. She was unable to leave her thumbprint or signature as her hands were badly burnt and bandaged. The next day she died. We view her statement, which tantamount to a dying declaration, as highly relevant and must be accorded a high degree of value (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chet Ram & Ors [1989] 1 MLRA 372; [1990] 3 CLJ (Rep) 468 ). Komathi in her statement said that she was in the lounge area watching the television when the appellant quietly entered the house through the rear door of the house holding a tin. He went immediately towards Sareswathy and drenched her with petrol. The appellant then drenched Komathi with petrol when she was in the process of pacifying him. Having done that the appellant took out a lighter and lit it causing fire to engulf them. As said above the two of them subsequently succumbed to the burns. [23] By entering the house the appellant had shown absolute callousness to life especially with so many people around in the house at that time. To use learned counsel's words, "there was a Deepavali party at the house"; it was a miracle that more people had not died. If committing suicide was his bizarre way of showing his undying love for his wife surely he could have done it more successfully and without interference outside the house? [24] At p. 148 of the appeal records the appellant testified that when Komathi embraced him he was totally drenched with petrol (Masa Komathi peluk saya badan saya telah dipenuhi petrol). We found no truth in this admission. It was his evidence that in the course of this dramatic incident that Sareswathy was also drenched with the petrol. If the appellant had actually drenched himself with petrol as alleged, and the deceased persons merely wanted to prevent him from committing suicide, there was no reason for him to be alive whilst the good samaritans were dead. In fact PPP Razali b. Ahmad (SP10) who visited the deceased persons in Hospital, together with the Shah Alam Magistrate who came along to remand the appellant, saw the latter in good health ("OYDT adalah okey ie, tidak cedera"). [25] The next phase was the final step of striking the lighter. Any person of average intelligence knows that petrol burns easily. Anyone drenched with petrol will