JUDGMENT : K.N. Singh, J. Ram Shanker Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Orai, convicting him u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment for murdering his wife Smt. Uma Devi. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 80th November 1969, between 6 and 7 P.M. Smt. Uma Devi wife of Ram Shanker, Appellant, was burnt in her house at Mohalla Ghaudhriyana, Jalaun town. According to the prosecution the Appellant poured kerosene oil on her and set fire thereto with intent to commit her murder. Smt. Uma Devi received burn injuries as a result of which she died at about 9 p.m. in the hospital, Uma Devi was the wife of the accused and she resided with her husband along with elder brother of the Appellant and his bhabhi and mother. It appears that Uma Devi deceased entertained a belief that her husband Ram Shanker had developed illicit intimacy with his elder brother's wife. Uma Devi resented with the result that there used to be constant quarrel between the husband and wife and the family members. On 30th November, 1969, a quarrel took place between Uma Devi on one hand and the Appellant's sister-in-law on the other. On that very day when it had become dark, the Appellant poured kerosene oil on Uma Devi and set her to fire. Uma Devi got burnt and became unconscious. A large number of residents of the Mohalla rushed to the place and Uma Devi was taken to Jalaun dispensary. Dr. Virendra Kumar gave her medical aid and examined her. He found third and fourth degree burns over her body. He found smell of kerosene oil coming from the clothes and her body. Her condition was dangerous. Dr. Virendra Kumar immediately called the Tahsildar Magistrate, IInd Class, Jalaun, for recording her dying declaration. He also sent a letter to Police Station Jalaun giving information about the admission of Uma Devi in the hospital with burn injuries, 3. In her dying declaration which was recorded by K.R. Bahadur (PW 6), Uma Devi stated that Ram Shanker, the Appellant had poured kerosene oil and set her to fire with a match box at the instance of his brother and his brother's wife. Smt. Uma Devi died at about 9 p.m. the same day. In her dying declaration which was recorded by K.R. Bahadur (PW 6), Uma Devi stated that Ram Shanker, the Appellant had poured kerosene oil and set her to fire with a match box at the instance of his brother and his brother's wife. Smt. Uma Devi died at about 9 p.m. the same day. After the investigation was completed the Appellant, husband of Uma Devi deceased, was sent up for trial. He denied to have committed the offence. The trial Judge held that the Appellant was guilty of the offence u/s 302 IPC for setting fire to his wife Smt. Uma Devi as a result of which she received serious burn injuries and died. On that finding the trial Judge sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment. Aggrieved, the Appellant has come to this Court in appeal. 4. The prosecution has not been able to produce any evidence to give direct testimony of the commission of the offence by the Appellant. Since Uma Devi was set to fire inside the house of the Appellant, it could not be expected that other outsiders could be present in the house to witness the occurrence. But there is no dispute about the fact that Smt. Uma Devi was the wife of the accused and she resided with him together with other members of the family. There is further no dispute that Smt. Uma Devi died as a result of serious burn injuries received in the house of the Appellant on the date and time of the occurrence. In his examination before the Committing Magistrate, the Appellant stated that Smt. Uma Devi committed suicide and the local police implicated him on her statement. Further in his statement u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure recorded before the trial Judge the Appellant stated that Smt. Uma Devi committed suicide and she falsely implicated him. He further stated that Smt. Uma Devi's parents wanted to take away their daughter but he did not allow her to go and at the time of occurrence he was not inside the house, instead he was away from the house, A boy came and told him that Uma Devi had burnt herself, thereupon be rushed to the house and saw that a number of persons were present there. He further reiterated that it was he who took his wife to the hospital for treatment. He further reiterated that it was he who took his wife to the hospital for treatment. It is thus clear that there is no dispute about the time, date and place of occurrence. It is also not in dispute that Smt. Uma Devi died of serious burn injuries. The question then arises as to whether the Appellant poured kerosene oil on Uma Devi and set her to fire or Smt. Uma Devi committed suicide by setting herself to fire. 5. As already noted there is no direct evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution to support its case against the Appellant. The prosecution, however, relies upon the statement of the deceased Uma Devi in her dying declaration which had been recorded by Tahsildar Magistrate K.R. Bahadur (PW 6) on 30-11-1969 at about 9 p.m. i.e. on the date of occurrence itself. In her dying declaration, Ex. Ka 19, Smt. Uma Devi stated that Ram Shanker Appellant had poured kerosene oil on her and set her to fire at the instance of his brother's wife. This is the only direct evidence against the Appellant. There is no other direct evidence to connect the Appellant with the crime. A question then arises as to whether the Appellant can be held guilty merely on the basis of the dying declaration of the deceased without there being any other evidence to corroborate the dying declaration. 6. It is a settled principle of law that dying declaration is good evidence for convicting an accused provided the dying declaration is found to be truthful version and the circumstances of the case corroborate the dying declaration. A dying declaration stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence and as such it has to be judged and decided in the light of the surrounding circumstances. In placing reliance upon the dying declaration the Court has to judge the circumstances in which the dying declaration may have been made and to ensure that the dying declaration was made at the earliest opportunity without there being any tuitoring by any interested person and that the person making the dying declaration was in a fit state of mind to recapitulate the incident and to state the truth. Since the veracity of the maker of the statement cannot be tested by cross-examination, the court is under a duty to scrutinise the same with care and caution. Since the veracity of the maker of the statement cannot be tested by cross-examination, the court is under a duty to scrutinise the same with care and caution. But once the dying declaration is found to be truthful the court is free to act upon the same without requiring corroboration of the facts stated in the dying declaration, With these general observations we would consider the nature of the dying declaration in the instant case and to consider whether that piece of evidence is sufficient to uphold the Appellant's conviction. 7. Deceased Smt. Uma Devi was taken to the hospital where she was examined by Dr. Virendra Kumar, Medical Officer (PW 5) at about 7 p.m. At the time of her admission to the hospital she was unconscious, but after 15 minutes of medical treatment she regained consciousness and started talking. Dr. Virendra Kumar has stated that since her condition was precarious he had sent a letter to the Tahsildar, Jalaun, for recording her dying declaration. He has further stated that her statement was recorded by the Tahsildar in his presence. He has further stated that he remained with the deceased in the hospital continuously from the moment she was admitted to the hospital till her dying declaration was recorded and nobody was allowed to talk to her to tuitor her. So any opportunity to tuitor or influence the deceased was ruled out. He further deposed that at the time when the dying declaration was recorded the deceased was in her senses and the dying declaration was recorded by the Tahsildar in the actual words as spoken by the deceased. 8. The testimony of Dr. Virendra Kumar is corroborated by PW 6 K.R. Bahadur, Tahsildar Magistrate, Jalaun. He deposed that on receiving information from the doctor he rushed to the hospital and there he recorded the dying declaration of Smt. Uma Devi, Ex. Ka 19. He had administered oath to the deceased before recording her statement and that he recorded the statement in the same words which were spoken by her, He further stated that she was in her senses at the time of giving her statement. His testimony fully corroborates the evidence of Dr. Ka 19. He had administered oath to the deceased before recording her statement and that he recorded the statement in the same words which were spoken by her, He further stated that she was in her senses at the time of giving her statement. His testimony fully corroborates the evidence of Dr. Virendra Kumar that Smt. Uma Devi was in a proper mental condition to give her statement and that nobody had any opportunity to tuitor her and that she voluntarily gave her statement without any pressure or persuation. The dying declaration was made after about an hour of the occurrence and an hour prior to her death. In the circumstances there is nothing to show that the dying declaration was vitiated on account of any infirmity. Smt. Uma Devi was the wife of the Appellant, she could not commit any mistake about the identity of her husband. She was an educated lady. She was educated upto High School. She was burnt inside the Appellant's house. She had received serious injuries. She knew that she might not survive and in that situation it is difficult to believe that she would falsely implicate her husband. Smt. Uma Devi was a Hindu wife. It is not expected that a Hindu wife will falsely implicate her husband. We are satisfied that the dying declaration was made voluntarily which contained a truthful version of the circumstances of ber death. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously urged that even if the dying declaration be taken to be truthful it did not help the prosecution as the Appellant's identity was not connected with the dying declaration. It is urged that in her statement, Smt. Uma Devi did not state that she haJ been set to fire by her husband Ram Shanker, instead she had merely stated that Ram Shanker poured kerosene oil and set her to fire at the instance of her Jeth and Jethani. It was urged that there may be several Ram Shankers in the town of Jalaun and, therefore, unless Smt. Uma Devi had further stated that Ram Shanker, her husband, was the person who was responsible for the crime, the Appellant could not be held guilty for the said offence. Reliance was placed on State v. Kanchan Singh 1953 AWR 640. 10. We have considered the question carefully but we do not find any substance in the Appellant's contention. Reliance was placed on State v. Kanchan Singh 1953 AWR 640. 10. We have considered the question carefully but we do not find any substance in the Appellant's contention. Before we proceed to examine the various circumstances it would be pertinent to reproduce the dying declaration which reads as under: I have been burnt. Ram Shanker has set me to fire, Jeth, Jethani have got this done. Burning was done with kerosene oil and match box, A quarrel had taken place with my Jeth and Jethani and they got me burnt. Ram Shanker conducts himself according to their wishes. I have read up to High School. I had given an application to the Collector, wherein I had mentioned that these people had threatened to set me to fire with the aid of kerosene oil. Ram Shanker was in collusion with my jethani (sister-in-law) and he had illicit connection with her. I have nothing to add. I was burnt after the lamps were lighted. When I was set to fire my Jeth, Jethani and mother-in-law were there. Ram Shanker set me to fire. The substance of the above statement is that her husband Ram Shanker was carrying on illicit connection with his elder brother's wife. There used to be quarrel with her on the one haud and Ram Shanker, his brother and his wife, on the other. Ram Shanker was in col lusion with his brother's wife. On the date of occurrence a quarrel hud taken place between Uma Devi and her Jeth and Jethani and it is stated that Ram Shanker set fire to her with a match box after pouring kerosene oil over her after sunset when lamps were lighted. She had already made a complaint to the Collector about the threats given by her husband on the earlier occasions. It is noteworthy that in her short statement the deceased stated at three places that Ram Shanker set fire to her. There is nothing on record to show that there is any other Ram Shanker in mohalla Chaudhriyana or in the town of Jalaun. PW 5 Iqbaluddin, the Investigating Officer, was examined. No suggestion was pat to him that there were other persons with the name of Ram Shanker in the town of Jalaun Balmukund (DW 1) was produced by the defence. PW 5 Iqbaluddin, the Investigating Officer, was examined. No suggestion was pat to him that there were other persons with the name of Ram Shanker in the town of Jalaun Balmukund (DW 1) was produced by the defence. Even he was not questioned on this point, he also did not state that there was any other person by the name of Ram Shanker in the town of Jalaun. In the absence of any suggestion or material on record to show that there were other persons also with the name of Ram Shanker, the defence cannot rely on imagination or conjectures that the deceased may have referred to some person other than the Appellant. 11. The deceased has given reason as to why Ram Shanker committed the offence. According to her, Ram Shanker carried on illicit connection with her Jethani as a result of which there was quarrel. It is natural that if Ram Shanker, the husband of the deceased, carried on illicit connection with another lady. Smt. Uma Devi would express resentment and pick up quarrel with her as well as with the Appellant. Further it is admitted that Smt. Uma Devi was burnt inside the Appellant's house. There is nothing to show that any other Ram Shanker was in the family or was on friendly terms with them, or that he had access to their house or family. When the deceased deposed that Ram Shanker was the person who set her to fire, there appears to be no reason to disbelieve her. The Appellant produced no evidence in rebuttal. No evidence was produced to show that there was any other Ram Shanker nor was any question put to the Investigating Officer to support the plea of absence of identity. The Appellant all along knew that Smt. Uma Devi had accused him of the offence. In his statement before the Committing Magistrate, the Appellant himself stated that Smt. Uma Devi committed suicide and on her statement he was being prosecuted. Before the trial Judge, he made a similar statement that his wife had committed suicide but falsely implicated him. The Appellant had never taken the plea that the dying declaration of Smt. Uma Devi was not directed to hire or that there was any other Ram Shanker. Even the defence has not made any such suggestion. Before the trial Judge, he made a similar statement that his wife had committed suicide but falsely implicated him. The Appellant had never taken the plea that the dying declaration of Smt. Uma Devi was not directed to hire or that there was any other Ram Shanker. Even the defence has not made any such suggestion. For all these reasons we are fully satisfied that Smt. Uma Devi referred to Ram Shanker, her husband, and to none else and the Appellant fully knew the same. 12. We have carefully gone through Kanchan Singh's case. We are unable to find anything in that case to support the Appellant's contention. In that case the deceased had named two persons as the Appellants in his dying declaration, Kanchan Singh and Phool Singh, After considering the evidence on record the Bench held that the identity of Phool Singh accused was fully established and on that finding he was convicted on the basis of the dying declaration. In coming to that conclusion the Bench observed that there was nothing on record to show that there were other persons of his name, the defence did not make any attempt to show that there were several persons with the name of Phool Singh residing in the village concerned. The Bench further observed that in the absence of any such evidence a mere suggestion that there could be several other persons of that name could not be accepted. As already mentioned in the instant cage, no attempt was made on behalf of the Appellant to show that there was any other person with the name of Ram Shanker residing in the town of Jalaun. In the circumstances the case of Kanchan Singh does not lend any support to the Appellant's contention. 13. In the result, we find that the prosecution has fully established its case against the Appellant and the trial Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced Ram Shanker Appellant. 14. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, The conviction and sentence of the Appellant are maintained. The Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence.