JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagr dated 29th July, 1980, by which, the accused-appellant has been convicted under s. 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of the payment of fine, she been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for four months. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under. PW I Smt. Manohari and deceased Guddi @ Almi are daughters of PW 3 Bastiram Naik. They were married about 7 years before the incident dated 12th June, 1979 to Shri Maniram and Ramu respectively the sons of Lalchand of Kaluwala. Lalchand is working with the Railways. It is alleged that PW 1 Smt. Manohari separated herself along with her husband from her in-laws. Deceased Guddi also wanted to live separately from her in-laws. This actually infuriated the accused-appellant Smt. Kesar, who is her mother-in-law. It is alleged that she gave a beating to her on June 11, 1979 and on 12th June, 1979, when she was cleansing the utensils, Smt. Kesar sprinkled kerosene oil over her and lighted the match and lit fire to her clothes in the Railway Quarter occupied by her and her husband along with her son Ramu and Smt. Guddi. On hearing her cries, it is alleged that PW 1 Manohari, DW I Giano and others arrived at the site. Father-in-law of the deceased was also called and he took her to the Hospital where dying declaration of Smt. Guddi was recorded by PW 4 Dr. R.K. Gupta at 12.05 on 12th June, 1979. On 12th June, 1979 at 11.55 A.M., the Doctor gave information to the police that Smt. Guddi who has extensive burn it on her body has been admitted in the Hospital. Her condition is serious and so, her dying declaration may be got recorded. 3. However, the condition of the victim injured Mst. Guddi was fast deteriorating and so, on the advice of the treating surgeon, PW 4 Dr. R.K. Gupta recorded her dying declaration in the presence of Dr. K S. Mehta, Dr. K.K. Soni, Dr. A.K. Sukheeja and Dr. P.S. Bhatiya. This dying declaration is Ex. P 2. The memo sent by the Doctor at 11.55 A.M. on 12th June, 1979 has been marked as Ex. P 1. R.K. Gupta recorded her dying declaration in the presence of Dr. K S. Mehta, Dr. K.K. Soni, Dr. A.K. Sukheeja and Dr. P.S. Bhatiya. This dying declaration is Ex. P 2. The memo sent by the Doctor at 11.55 A.M. on 12th June, 1979 has been marked as Ex. P 1. After recording of the dying declaration, the Doctor again sent a letter Ex. P 3 to the SHO at 12.40 P.M. informing him that the dying declaration of Smt. Guddi has been recorded as her condition was poor. Smt. Guddi expired at 3.05 P.M. on that very day and her autopsy was conducted by PW 4 Dr. R.K. Gupta on the same day at 7 P.M. which has been marked as Ex. P 5. On receipt of the information Ex. P 1 by the Doctor, the SHO reached the Hospital at 2.00 P.M. and found Smt. Guddi unconscious. However, he neither obtained the dying declaration of Smt; Guddi from the Doctor nor he registered any case but proceeded on the spot to conduct usual investigation. He inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P 6 and site inspection memo Ex. P 6A. He also seized the burnt clothes and put them in a gunny bag, and prepared its seizure memo Ex P 7. After Smt. Guddi died, her dead body was also examined and a memo Ex. P 8 was prepared along with the Panchnama Ex. P 9. Although the incident took place on 12th June, 1979, the victim died on that very day, no efforts were made by the Police to obtain the dying declaration from the Medical Jurist. It appears from the record that Smt. Manohari (PW 1) and her father PW 3 Bastiram tried to contact the higher Police Officers and informed them that Smt. Guddi has been burnt by her husband Ramu, her sister-in-law Rampyari, her mother-in-law Smt. Kesar who has been presently tried for the offence under s. 302 IPC and her father-in-law Lalchand. However, their efforts did not yield any immediate results and ultimately, the investigation was transferred from PW 6 Ramlubhaya SHO to PW 8 Gopalaram SHO. 4. Shri Gopalram as late on 22nd June, 1979 made a request to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar to ask the Doctor to furnish the original dying declarations to the police. However, their efforts did not yield any immediate results and ultimately, the investigation was transferred from PW 6 Ramlubhaya SHO to PW 8 Gopalaram SHO. 4. Shri Gopalram as late on 22nd June, 1979 made a request to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar to ask the Doctor to furnish the original dying declarations to the police. It was under orders of the Court that the dying declaration was obtained from the Doctor on 22nd June, 1979 and on its basis, a formal FIR Ex. P 11 was drawn. On inspection of the site afresh by Shri Gopalaram, one empty iron container of 5 litters was found in the chowk of the quarter of Shri Lalchand and who seized it vide memo Ex. P 12. Smt. Kesar was arrested as late as on July 19, 1979 i.e. about five weeks after the occurrence. After usual investigation the Police challaned the case against Smt. Kesar in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. 5. The learned lower court framed the charge under s. 302 IPC against the accused-appellant Smt. Kesar. Nor plea was recorded. She denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses during the trial viz., PW 1 Manohari, PW 2 Mehar Cnand, PW 3 Bastriram PW 4 Dr. R.K. Gupta, PW 5 Dr. A.K. Satiya, PW 6, Shri PW 7. Shiv Narain and PW 8 Gopalaram. The statement of the accused was recorded under s. 313 Cr. PC. In her defence, she examined DWI Smt. Gyane. 6. After hearing the parties, the lower court decided the case as stated above. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. Manilal, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and Mr. L.S. Udawat, learned public prosecutor for the State and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 8. At the very outset, it may be observed that although the prosecution has produced one alleged eye witness of the occurrence i.e. PW I Smt. Manohari, sister of the deceased and to support her testimony, it has examined PW 2 Meharchand and PW 3 Bastiram but the lower court has disbelieved the testimony of all these three witnesses. 8. At the very outset, it may be observed that although the prosecution has produced one alleged eye witness of the occurrence i.e. PW I Smt. Manohari, sister of the deceased and to support her testimony, it has examined PW 2 Meharchand and PW 3 Bastiram but the lower court has disbelieved the testimony of all these three witnesses. It has solely relied on the testimony of the dying declaration which has been got proved from the testimony of PW 4 Dr. R.K. Gupta and PW 5 Dr. A.K. Satija. We are in total agreement with the finding of the learned iower court that PW 1 Smt. Manohari, PW 2 Meharchand and PW 3 Bastiram are not wholly reliable witnesses and the learned lower court has rightly disbelieved their testimony. 9. In her statement, PW 1 Smt. Manohari has stated that she and her sister Smt. Guddi were married in the same family before about 7 years. She separated from the family of her husband's parents before about six months from the date of the occurrence. On the day of the occurrence, her husband was out. She saw at about 10 A.M. that Rama, her brother-in-law and husband of Smt. Guddi, was beating her with a stick. He then dragged her inside the room where her sister-in-law Rampyari sprinkled the kerosene oil on Smt. Guddi and Smt. Kesar lighted the match and burnt Mst. Guddi. Her father-in-law Lalchand was also standing in the chowk of the quarter and told that Smt. Manohari is also making noise and so she too, should he burnt. Ramu stuck a piece of brick on the head of Smt. Guddi. After lighting fire to the clothes of Smt. Guddi, they bolted the doors of the room from outside, which was later on opened by them. By that time, Smt. Guddi received extensive burn injuries. Smt. Manohari poured water on her to put off the fire. Ramu then dragged Smt. Guddi outside the room and her father-in-law Lalchand took her to the Hospital. She was not asked to accompany Guddi to the Hospital. After sometime, one Meharchand (PW 2) of her village came to her and demanded meals from her but she told him while weeping that he may inform her father that her sister Guddi has been burnt by her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. She was not asked to accompany Guddi to the Hospital. After sometime, one Meharchand (PW 2) of her village came to her and demanded meals from her but she told him while weeping that he may inform her father that her sister Guddi has been burnt by her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. PW 2 Meharchand then went away from there without taking meals. PW 3 Bastiram, father of PW l Manohari came for the village of Lalchand after three days. Firstly, this witness has been cross-examined on the basis of her previous statement recorded by the Police. Ex D I is her statement recorded under s. 174 Cr. PC and Ex. D 2 is her statement recorded by the Police during investigation. In both these statements, she has stated that she did not know how her sister was hurnt. She has not alleged in these statements that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law have killed Smt. Guddi by sprinkling kerosene oil on her and lighting fire to her clothes. Her attention has specifically been drawn to portions A to B, C to D of Ex. D 1 and portions A to B and C to D of her Police statement Ex. D 2. She denied these portions of her Police statement and gave explanation about the contradictions apparent on the face of the record. Be that as it may, she cannot be an eyewitness of the occurrence. She has stated that Ramu gave to stick blows to Smt. Guddi and stuck a blow with piece of brick on her head. The Doctor has stated that no external injury of any kind except extensive 19% second degree burns were found on the body of Smt. Guddi. She has further stated that her father-in-law brought back the dead body of Smt. Guddi from the Hospital on the same day at 11 A.M. This testimony too has been falsified by the evidence of PW 4 Dr. R.K. Gupta. According to the Doctor, Smt. Guddi was admitted to the Hospital. She died at 3.05 P.M. and her autopsy was conducted at 7 P.M. and so, her dead body could be brought to the village only after that and not at 11 A.M. She stated in her Police statement Ex. D 2 that her father came to the house on that very night but now she has stated that he came after three days. D 2 that her father came to the house on that very night but now she has stated that he came after three days. It has been alleged that PW 2 Meharchand informed PW 3 Bastiram about the incident but in his police statement (Ex. D 4) Basti Ram has stated that he left for the house of Smt. Guddi on the same day after receiving the message from Nanu Naik and Jairnal Naik who came to take him with them in a Jeep. Now, PW 2 Meharchand has stated that he went to inform Bastiram. Bastiram was actually present at his house and received the information of death of her daughter Smt. Guddi from him. This witness Meharchand has also been confronted with his police statement Ex. D 3 portions A to B, C to D, and to E in which he has stated that he reached Kalibanga on the same night, but Bastiram was not present. Thus, these witnesses have now put up a story which is totally inconsistent with their earlier police statements and, therefore, these witnesses are not reliable and the learned lower court has rightly disbelieved them. When we exclude the testimony of these three witnesses only evidence which remains to be considered is the dying declaration of Smt. Guddi Almi recorded by PW 4 Dr. R.K. Gupta in the presence of four other Doctors on the advise of the treating surgeon. 10. It has been held in Rabi Chandra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1980 SC 1738 as follows : "It is well settled by a catena of decision of this Court that if after searching scrutiny the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration represents a truthful version of the occurrence in which the deceased received injuries which led to his death then even in the absence of any independent corroboration a conviction can be founded thereon." In an earlier decision, the Supreme Court has observed in Husa and Others v. State of Orissa, AIR 1980 SC 559 as under : "It is thus manifest that a person on the verge of death is most unlikely to make an untrue statement unless prompted or tutored by his friends or relatives. In fact, the shadow of immediate death is the best gurantee of the truth of the statement made by a dying person regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death which are absolutely fresh in his mind and is untainted or discoloured by any other consideration except speaking the truth. It is for these reasons that the Statute (The Evidence Act) attaches a special sanctity to a dying declaration. Thus, if the statement of a dying person passes the test of careful scrutiny applied by the Courts, it becomes a most reliable piece of evidence which does not require any corroboration. Suffice it to say that it is now well settled by a long course of decisions of this Court that although a dying declaration should be carefully scrutinised but if after perusal of the same, the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and is free from any effect to prompt the deceased to make a statement and is coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in founding the conviction on such a dying declaration even if there is no corroboration." It will be clear from these two authorities that a dying person who has not been prompted or tutored by his relations will speak the truth. It has been held that the shadow of immediate death is the best gurantee of the truth of I the statement made by a dying person regarding the causes and circumstances I leading to his death which are absolutely fresh in his mind or are untainted I or discoloured by any other consideration except speaking the truth and,therefore, special sanctity should be attached to a dying declaration. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant drew our attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Nada Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 Cr.LR (Raj.) 73 , to which one of us i.e. Hon'ble Miss Kanta Bhatnagar, J, was a party. It was observed as under : "The sanctity of the dying declaration is considered for the reason that the person leaving for the heaven abode would try to depart from this world with a clean soul to meet his Master. In other words, a person on the verge of death is ordinarily not expected to indulge in falsely implicating innocent persons. This, however, cannot be taken to be a universal rule. In other words, a person on the verge of death is ordinarily not expected to indulge in falsely implicating innocent persons. This, however, cannot be taken to be a universal rule. The Courts are required to closely scrutinise the deposition of the dying man in the light of checks available on record and not taking the dying declaration as a gospal truth on the assumption that the departing man would not commit the sin of fabricating false statement against innocent person." In this case also, their Lordships held that great sanctity should be attached to the version of a dying man but it should not be taken as a gospel truth and it should be properly scrutinised. This decision has to be read in the light of the above Supreme Court authorities wherein it has been held that the dying declaration should be closely scrutinised and if it passes the test of careful scrutiny, it alone can be made a basis of conviction. 11. PW 4 Dr. R.K. Gupta has stated that on 12th June, 1979 when he was working as medical jurist in the Government Hospital Sri Ganganagar, he found one lady Smt. Guddi wife of Ramu aged 18 years by caste Nails admitted in the Hospital. She had extensive burn injuries on her body and her condition was poor. He, therefore, thought it proper that her dying declaration should be recorded. He wrote memo Ex. P 1 to the Police at 11.55 A.M. advising them to get her dying declaration recorded, He has proved Ex. P 1 which bears signatures A to B. As the condition of the patient was fast deteriorating the treating surgeon opined that her dying declaration should immediately be recorded and so, at the instance of the treating surgeon at about 12.05 P.M. just after 10 minutes of the sending of Ex. P 1 to the Police, PW 4 Dr. R.K. Gapta recorded the dying declaration of Suit. Guddi in the presence of four Doctors. He has stated that her dying declaration is Ex. P 2 which has been signed by his at the place A to B. C to D, E to F and G to H are the signature of Dr. K.S. Metha, Dr. K.K. Soni and Dr. P.S. Bhatiya respectively and all of them have signed before him. On that very day at 12.45 P.M , he wrote Ex. P 2 which has been signed by his at the place A to B. C to D, E to F and G to H are the signature of Dr. K.S. Metha, Dr. K.K. Soni and Dr. P.S. Bhatiya respectively and all of them have signed before him. On that very day at 12.45 P.M , he wrote Ex. P 3 to the Police informing them that Mst. Guddi's dying declaration has been recorded by him looking to her serious condition. When he recorded the statement of Smt. Guddi, she was in a fit condition to give her statement. At. 5.45 P.M., he informed the Police that Smt. Guddi has died in the Hospital. He has also conducted the postmortem examination of Smt. Guddi, which has been marked Ex. P 5. Learned counsel for the appellant as not at all challenged the contents of the postmortem report as also the factum of death of the deceased on account of severe burn injuries. He has rather admitted that Smt. Guddi died of shock due to severe burn injuries recorded by her but as per him, her death was suicidal rather them homicidal. 12. On cross-examination, Dr. R.K. Gupta (PW 4) has stated that Smt. Guddi was brought to the Hospital by several persons who belonged to her-in-laws family. It has been admitted at this stage by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no scope for preparing or tutoring in this case because Smt. Guddi was brought to the Hospital by her father-in-law Lalchand and his family members. They could not have prempted or tutored Suit. Guddi to implicate Smt. Kesar who is the wife of Lalchand. In the dying declaration, Smt. Guddi has stated that her mother-in-law has sprinkled keresone oil over her and it is she who a day before the occurrence, her mother-in-law gave a beating to her. Why she gave this beating, she does not know. Her husband and her father-in-law were not present there and have gone to work. She was burnt in the morning. In what container, the Kerosin oil was kept she does not know. Her brother-in-law is young. After that, the Doctor has recorded that the patient was gurgling and said that "I have been burnt. So what more I could say ?" 13. She was burnt in the morning. In what container, the Kerosin oil was kept she does not know. Her brother-in-law is young. After that, the Doctor has recorded that the patient was gurgling and said that "I have been burnt. So what more I could say ?" 13. Learned counsel for the accused has challenged this testimony regarding dying declaration on the ground that the fitness of Smt. Guddi to give her statement has not been recorded by the Doctor. He has stated that such a dying declaration should be in the question answer form. Whereas, this dying declaration has been recorded in the narrative form. Moreover, he has attacked this dying declaration on this ground also that it has not been recorded in the exact words of the deceased. In this respect, he has relied on a Division Bench ruling of our own High Court in Hariram v. The State, 1964 RLW 228 and on K. Ramchandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, 1976 SCC (Cr.) 473 . It has been observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Hari Ram's case 1964 RLW 228 that a dying declaration should generally be recorded in the words spoken by the deceased but if it is not recorded in exact words of the dying man, it is no ground for its rejection if the Court is satisfied that it correctly reproduces statement of deceased. It was further held that a dying declaration should generally be recorded in the question-answer form but more omission to record it in such form i) no ground for its rejection. This ruling does not help the case of the appellant. It only says that usually dying declaration should be recorded in question-answer form and in the exact words of the deceased. Generally, the Magistrates who record the dying declaration are conversant with the decisions of the Courts and they are expected to record it in question-answer form but the Doctors who have little knowledge of law very rarely abide by these procedural guidelines. Generally, the Magistrates who record the dying declaration are conversant with the decisions of the Courts and they are expected to record it in question-answer form but the Doctors who have little knowledge of law very rarely abide by these procedural guidelines. The Court has to scrutinise evidence closely & come to a conclusion whether the Doctor has faithfully recorded the dying declaration of the deceased and after it cease to the conclusion that whatever has been recorded by the witness contains a truth and faithful record of what the deceased has told to the witness before his death, than that statement has to be relied on and can safely be made the basis for conviction without corroboration. 14. In K. Ramchandra Reddy's case 1976 SCC (Cr.) 473, their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that dying declaration is undoubtedly admissible under s. 32 of the Evidence Act and not being a statement on oath so that its truth could be tested by cross-examination, the Courts have to apply the strictest scrutiny and the closest circumspection to the statement before acting upon it. While great solemnity and sanctity is attached to the words of a dying man because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies or to concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person yet the Court has to be on guard against the statement of the deceased being a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of his imagination. The Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement after the deceased had a clear opportunity to observe and identify his assailants and that be was making the statement without any influence or rancour. Once the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can be sufficient to found the conviction even without any further corroboration. 15. Regarding fitness of the victim to give statement, Dr. R.K. Gupta has categorically stated that she was at that point of time in the fit state of mind to give statement. He was cross-examined at length about the word gurgling (Bahakana) used by him in Ex. D 2. 15. Regarding fitness of the victim to give statement, Dr. R.K. Gupta has categorically stated that she was at that point of time in the fit state of mind to give statement. He was cross-examined at length about the word gurgling (Bahakana) used by him in Ex. D 2. He stated that he did not mean that the victim became delirious, she was repeating one sentence time and again at that point of time and so, he has recorded that she was gurgling. He has further stated that be asked her how she has been burnt and further asked her whether her husband or father-in-law were present there and who also were present there. He also asked her in what container, the Kerosene oil was stored and whatever reply was given to his questions, he has faithfully recorded them in the presence of the four other Doctors. PW 5 Dr. A.K. Satija has stated that several questions were not asked to the deceased but she was asked what has happened to her and she narrated the whole story. By gurgling, he meant that she was in semi-conscious state but her mind was alert. She was speaking at the time of giving this statement and the entire statement was recorded on the basis of the words spoken by her. He has further stated that she was in a fit mental state to give her statement. Thus, according to the testimony of both these Doctors, Smt. Guddi was in a fit mental state to give her statement. It is not a record of gesture but it is actually a record of her oral statement. There is no question of jealousy. She has specifically excluded the participation of her father-in-law and husband. She has not named her sister-in-law as an assailant. This shows that PW 1 Mst. Manohari and her father Bastiram have tried to implicate all the members of the family of Lalchand except the husband of Smt. Manohari. Smt. Guddi has been fair to say that only her mother-in-law, because of a quarrel with her, has beaten her on the previous day and on the day of the incident, it was she who sprinkled kerosene oil on her and lighted her clothes which resulted in extensive burnt injuries to her body. Thus, there is no scope for false implication. Thus, there is no scope for false implication. We agree with the learned counsel or the accused-appellant that when a Magistrate or any body else records the dying declaration, he has to obtain the ,certificate of the Doctor that the patient is in a fit state of mind to understand the questions. But when the Doctor himself records the statement at the instance of the treating surgeon it has to be inferred that the Doctor has satisfied himself that she is in a fit mental stage to give the statement. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have been pleased to lay down in A.M. A. Rehman v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1976 SC 1782 , wherein it has been observed as follows : "The Doctor is the best person to opine about the fitness of the deceased to make the statement where the Doctor found that life was ebbting fast in the patient and there was no time to call the Police or a Magistrate, the Doctor held, was justified-indeed,he was duty bound to record the dying declaration of the deceased. He was a disinterested, respectable witness. The trial Judge was, therefore, wholly unjustified in rejecting the evidence of the Medical Officer." Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have further observed as follows : "We are in entire agreement with the High Court that Dr. Shah's statement discloses" a picture of straight-forwardness and for the rightness." There is absolutely nothing in that statement which could raise a suspicion that the deponent was biased in favour of the prosecution or ill disposed towards the accused." 16. Similar is the situation in the case before us. The Doctor is a totally disinterested-respectable witness. He has taken precautions to secure the presence of four other Doctors at the time of recording of the dying declaration and got their signatures over it. He has faithfully recorded the version of the deceased mostly in her own words. May be here and there, he has used Hindi version of her statement but after a close scrutiny of the dying declaration we are in agreement with the learned lower court that this dying declaration contains the true and faithful record of whatever has been spoken by the deceased before her death. life was ebbing fast out of the patient. May be here and there, he has used Hindi version of her statement but after a close scrutiny of the dying declaration we are in agreement with the learned lower court that this dying declaration contains the true and faithful record of whatever has been spoken by the deceased before her death. life was ebbing fast out of the patient. It will be clear from the fact that the Doctor wrote to the Police at 11.55 A.M. that her dying declaration may I be get recorded and within 10 minutes, the treating surgeon opined that I condition of the patient is fast deteriorating and so, her, dying declaration I may be recorded by the medical jurist and, therefore, the medical jurist was I duty bound to record the dying declaration. The last words used by the deceased clinch the matter. She has stated that when she has been burnt, what more she could say? This clearly means that it as not at all a case of suicide but it is a case of homicide. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to Ram Dass v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 SCC (Cr.) 254 , wherein, it has been held that the Court should scrutinise the evidence and thereafter come to a finding whether it is a case of homicide or suicide. We have already discussed the evidence led in the case and have come to the conclusion that it is clearly a case of homicide and not suicide. Had it been a case of suicide, the lady who died would not have said that she has been burnt by her mother-in-taw and what more she should say ? 18. Learned counsel for the accused appellant next argued that in criminal cases, the pattern of crime should fit in with the motive. In this connection, he placed reliance on State of U.P. v. Hari Prasad, 1974 SCC (Cr.) 200 . His line of argument was that it was the deceased who wanted to separate from her mother in-law. 18. Learned counsel for the accused appellant next argued that in criminal cases, the pattern of crime should fit in with the motive. In this connection, he placed reliance on State of U.P. v. Hari Prasad, 1974 SCC (Cr.) 200 . His line of argument was that it was the deceased who wanted to separate from her mother in-law. According to her own dying declaration, she was beaten by her mother-in-law on the day previous to the alleged occurrence and so, it was not the accused, who was aggrieved against the deceased at conversely it was the deceased who was aggrieved against the accused and so when she was not allowed to separate from the family of her father-in law by her mother-in-law and was given a beating on that account, there was a greater probability that she would commit suicide rather than be killed by her mother-in-law. In this context, learned counsel has submitted that when two inferences are possible one which favours the accused should be accepted In this respect, he placed reliance again on Ram Dass's case (7), wherein it has been observed as follows : "It is a settled rule of circumstantial evidence that where circumstances are susceptible of two equally possible inferences, the courts should accept that inference which favours the accused rather then an inference which goes in favour of the prosecution." We have given our most anxious consideration to this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant but we are not impressed by it. The deceased has also stated that she had a quarrel with her mother-in-law and the mother-in-law too, has stated that she had a quarrel with her daughter-in-law because she wanted separation from joint status. The very fact that she wanted separation from the family and her elder sister has already separated from the family was upper most in her mind and so when they both were alone, she took advantage of this situation and sprinkled kerosene oil over her and killed her. This is the only conclusion possible in the light of our observation about that the dying declaration of Smt. Guddi is a very reliable piece of evidence. This is the only conclusion possible in the light of our observation about that the dying declaration of Smt. Guddi is a very reliable piece of evidence. In this respect, the learned counsel for the appellant put one more argument that in age, the deceased was younger than the accused and, therefore, deceased should have put some resistance, had it been a case of homicide rather than suicide. There is no cross-examination from the side of the accused-appellant about the physique of the deceased and the accused. It is a matter of common knowledge that the daughter-in-law cannot be assertive against her mother-in-law in the family of her in-laws and she generally fears the mother-in-law. The age of the mother-in-law is also about 40 years and so, unless the comparative physique was brought on record, it is difficult to give any weight to this argument put forth by him. It appears that when the deceased was cleaning the utensils, the mother-in-law took advantage of this situation, sprinkled the kerosene oil and lighted her clothes and so, it may be possible that there was no occasion for her to resist till her clothes caught fire and she came to know about it. Moreover, in such a case, the shadow of immediate death of the victim is the best guarantee of the truth of her statement and she has categorically stated that her mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene oil over her and lit fire to her clothes by which she was burnt. We are, therefore, least impressed by this line of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly argued that he has not been supplied with the copies of the statements of the Doctors recorded under s. 161 Cr. PC Learned Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the order sheet dated August 7. 1979 of the case file of the Munsif Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, wherein, it has been recorded that copies of the statements recorded under s 161 Cr. PC have been given to the counsel for the appellant and, therefore, this argument too, has no force. Moreover, non-supply of such copies cannot vitiate the trial. 1979 of the case file of the Munsif Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, wherein, it has been recorded that copies of the statements recorded under s 161 Cr. PC have been given to the counsel for the appellant and, therefore, this argument too, has no force. Moreover, non-supply of such copies cannot vitiate the trial. Reliance in this connection be placed on Narayan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 737 whereby, it has been enjoined with the Police officers concerned and the Magistrate before whom such proceedings are brought, to see that all the documents necessary to give the accused-persons, all the information for the proper conduct of their defence are furnished. It has further been held that non-compliance of this provision has not the result of vitiating those proceedings and subsequent trial. 20. It was faintly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Mst. Kesar and her husband were sleeping in a Chhappar because they were awake throughout the previous night as that she-buffalo belonging to them delivered a buffalo-calf that very night. The occurrence took place at 10 A.M. Even if they were awake during the night it was not difficult for the accused to commit this occurrence with the deceased at 10 A.M. The contents of the dying declaration, which have been held to be reliable by us, wherein Smt. Guddi has stated that her father-in-law was not there as he had gone to work and it was the mother-in-law, who alone his committed this crime. When we have placed implicit reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased, the defence taken by the accused in her statement under s. 313 Cr. P.C, and the testimony given by DW 1 Smt. Gyano cannot be relied. Taking an over all view of the entire circumstances of the case, we are inclined to held that the dying declaration is a reliable piece of evidence and the learned lower court was right in holding the accused guilty of the offence under s. 302 IPC on the basis of this dying declaration. 21. We, therefore, find no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellant is already undergoing the sentence.The Jail authorities may be informed of the result of this appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******