Judgment N. C. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) - This is an appeal by Rajeshpuri under section 374, Cr. P. C. against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated December 3, 1982 where by the appellant was convicted under section 302, I. P. C. for murder of his wife Smt. Manju and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) SMT. Manju was married to the appellant on May 11, 1981. At or about 9. 30. P. M. on October 8, 1981 Smt. Manju was brought in an ambulance from Hotel Roopam to P. B. M. Hospital, Bikaner, in a burnt condition along with her husband Rajeshpuri. There were superficial and deep burns all over the body of Smt. Manju of varing degrees except planter surface of both the feet, dorsum of both feet, vagina and surrounding area of skin and both auxiliary pits. There was seizing of scalp hair all over. Eyebrows and eye-lashes were completely burnt. The burnt area involved was about 90 to 95 p. c. of the total body surface area. Dr. P. N. Mathur P. W. 2 was at that time on duty as a Medical Jurist in P. B. M. Hospital, Bikaner. He examined the burns on the body of Smt. Manju aged 18 years at 9. 30 P. M. of October 8, 1981 in new Y yard. Dr. P. N. Mathur then informed Ram Chandra Singh P. W. 11 who was Assistant Sub-Inspector Police posted at Police Station, Kotgate, Bikaner by telephone about this fact. Ramchandra Singh P. W. 11 proceeded to P. B. M. Hospital and reached new y yard where Smt. Manju had been admitted and was lying in a burnt condition. According to the prosecution, Smt. Manju was fit for giving statement and Ramchandra Singh recorded her dying declaration Ex. P. 18 at about 10. 30 P. M. on the same date. In this dying declaration Smt. Manju stated that she was married to the appellant 5 months before the incident. She had stayed along with her husband (appellant) since October 7, 1981 in Roopam Hotel, On October 8, 1981 at about 8. 30 P. M. she along with her husband had returned to the room in the hotel from her sisters house in Bikaner. She had stayed along with her husband (appellant) since October 7, 1981 in Roopam Hotel, On October 8, 1981 at about 8. 30 P. M. she along with her husband had returned to the room in the hotel from her sisters house in Bikaner. At that time the appellant is said to have asked Smt. Manju as to whose house she had gone and hurled vulgar abuses to her. Thereafter the appellant sprinkled Kerosene oil on the body of Smt. Manju and lit fire to her clothes, which she was wearing. She was burnt on account of this reason. She raised a cry and shrieked. Then the appellant opened the door of the room in the hotel. Meanwhile several persons assembled and she was brought to the hospital. In the beginning the appellant had also tried to strangulate her. She stated that the appellant had burnt her in order to murder her. As both the hands of Smt. Manju were burnt she was not in a position to put her thumb marks on the dying declaration Ex. P. 18. ( 3 ) SMT. Manju was daughter of Kishorilal and Smt. Rami. Sheela P. W. 8, Santosh Devi, Rajkumari P. W. 9 and deceased Smt. Manju were real sisters. Smt. Manju was the youngest of the four sisters. Manoharlal P. W. 5. was the real brother of Smt. Manju. Manoharlal P. W. 5, Sheela P. W. 8 and Rajkumari P. W. 9 were living at Bikaner itself. The appellant Rajeshpuri was an L. D. C. in Rajasthan Canal Project and was posted at Bhikampur. He had come to Bikaner along with his wife Smt. Manju on October 7, 1981 on some official duty and had stayed in room No. 11 of Roopam Hotel which is just opposite Railway Station, Bikaner. According to Sheela P. W. 8, the appellant along with Smt. Manju had come to her house at about 10 A. M. on the date of the incident. Husband of Sheela was out to Haridwar. The appellant told Sheela that he was going to meet his Officer and Smt. Manju will remain at the house of Sheela. The appellant further told that he will come in the evening and take his dinner at Sheelas house. During day Smt. Manju remained at the house of Sheela. The appellant returned to the house of Sheela at about 5 or 5. The appellant further told that he will come in the evening and take his dinner at Sheelas house. During day Smt. Manju remained at the house of Sheela. The appellant returned to the house of Sheela at about 5 or 5. 30 P. M. He took afternoon tea at the house of Sheela and then left the house of Sheela along with Smt. Manju telling that he was going to his room in the hotel. Vinay Kumar P. W. 6 is. the son of Rajkumari P. W. 9 and he runs a cycle shop quite near the shop of Manoharlal P. W. 5, brother of Smt. Manju, At about 9. 30 P. M. a person came to the shop of Vinay Kumar in order to take a cycle on hire. Vinay Kumar told him that he did not know him. That person told Vinay Kumar that he often used to take cycle on hire from the shop of Manoharlal P. W. 5. Vinay Kumar thereupon told that person to take the cycle from the shop of Manoharlal. Vinay Kumar was informed that Manoharlal was not at his shop because his sister had burnt. Vinay Kumar therefore, also closed his shop and went to his house to inform his mother Rajkumari P. W. 9 about the incident. On hearing this Rajkumari immediately went to the house of her elder sister Sheela P. W. 8 and informed her that their sister Smt. Manju had been burnt in the hotel and had been taken to the hospital. Both Sheela and Rajkumari thereupon proceeded to the hospital and reached there at about 11 P. M. They inquired from Smt. Manju about the matter. They stated that Smt. Manju told them that the appellant had taken her from the house of Sheela to Roopam Hotel. At the hotel the appellant asked Smt. Manju that whom she had met that day. Under suspicion the appellant bet Smt. Manju. Thereafter her ornaments were taken off and the appellant poured kerosene oil over her and burnt her. After burning her the appellant even attempted to run away but he was detained by the proprietor and servant of the hotel and brought back. This oral statement is alleged to have been made by Smt. Manju before her sisters Sheela P. W. 8 and Rajkumari P. W. 9 after they had reached the hospital. After burning her the appellant even attempted to run away but he was detained by the proprietor and servant of the hotel and brought back. This oral statement is alleged to have been made by Smt. Manju before her sisters Sheela P. W. 8 and Rajkumari P. W. 9 after they had reached the hospital. ( 4 ) BY an application Ex. P. 19 made by Ramchandra singh A. S. L, the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner was requested to come to the hospital to record the dying declaration of Smt. Manju in the hospital. Umesh Kumar Sharma P. W. 12 thereupon proceeded to the hospital. Manjus mother was present at the hospital. She was sent out-side the ward by the Judicial Magistrate. He recorded the dying declaration of Smt. Manju which is Ex. P. 20 on the record. In Ex. P. 20 Smt. Manju stated that she came from the house of her sister. The appellant drank wine. He used to beat her. Then he poured kerosene oil on her and burnt her. The appellant tells her not to keep relations with anyone. He is a man of suspicious nature. He habitually drinks wine and tells her to keep a friend. Her ornaments were also burnt. In Ex. P. 20 a note was made by the doctor at 10. 45 P. M. that the patient was fit for giving statement though morphine injection was given. As both the hands of Smt. Manju were burnt, her thumb impression could not be obtained. ( 5 ) SITARAM P. W. 15 was the Officer In charge of Police Station, Kotgate, Bikaner. He had sent Ramchandra ASI to the hospital on receiving telephonic message. A report Ex. P. 28 was recorded in Roznamcha about his telephonic message. After return of Ramesh Chandra Singh, a F. I. R. was recorded on the basis of the statement given by Smt. Manju to Ramchandra Singh and a case was registered initially under section 307, I. P. C. However, Smt. Manju died in the hospital on October 12, 1981 at 4. 25 P. M. due to shock as a result of extensive burns and secondary infection. Shri Sitaram P. W. 15 prepared the site plan Ex. P. 7 and seized a pair of chapples of Smt. Manju, two watches, silver bangles and ear-rings from room No. 11 of the hotel. Some match-sticks were also seized. 25 P. M. due to shock as a result of extensive burns and secondary infection. Shri Sitaram P. W. 15 prepared the site plan Ex. P. 7 and seized a pair of chapples of Smt. Manju, two watches, silver bangles and ear-rings from room No. 11 of the hotel. Some match-sticks were also seized. Burnt clothes of Smt. Manju were also seized. Sitaram further seized a tin having 8 litres kerosene oil in it under the seizure memo Ex. P. 9. Inquest report Ex. P. 17 was prepared in the presence of Motbirs. Post-mortem examination was carried out by Dr. Shyamsunder P. W. 1 and he gave his report Ex. p. i. After post-mortem examination, the dead body of Smt. Manju was handed over to her brother Manoharlal. The appellant had been arrested on October 10, 1981. ( 6 ) THE appellant had also received some burns and he was also admitted in CT ward of P. B. M. Hospital Bikaner. His burn injuries were examined by Dr. P. N. Mathur P. W. 1 on October 8, 1981 at 10. 15 P. M. The appellant had superficial burns on his face and neck anteriorly. There was a patch of burn on his right shoulder, right arm anterolaterally right forearm flexor aspect, left arm anteromedially, left fore arm flexor aspect and deep burns on right and left hands. There was blister on left foot dorsomedially lower 1/2 and a blister on metacarpo-phalynegeal joint of left great-the. There was evidence of seizing of scalp hair at frontal region right side, occipital region, temporal region, kalme, on the brows and moustches. The burns involved about 10 to 15 per cent of total body surface area. ( 7 ) AFTER necessary investigation the Police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under section 302 I. P. C. before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Bikaner who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge, Bikaner after trial found the appellant guilty for offence under section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life by his judgment dated December 3, 1982. The appellant has come in appeal before this Court. ( 8 ) WE may also narrate the version of the appellant as given by him in his examination under section 313, Cr. The appellant has come in appeal before this Court. ( 8 ) WE may also narrate the version of the appellant as given by him in his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. The appellant stated that in connection with his service, he is posted at Bhikampur and he had to return to Bhikampur from Bikaner by the evening train on Dashera day. On that day during day hours he had left his wife Smt. Manju at the residence of his sister-in-law Sheela P. W. 8 and he himself went away to meet his officer. At about 6 P. M. he returned to the house of Sheela and took his wife Smt. Manju from there and went to his room in the hotel. According to him, he never takes wine. Character of Smt. Manju was quite good and he loved her extremely. After some time his both sister-in-laws, namely Sheela and Rajkumari came to Roopam Hotel and asked him to send Smt. Manju along with them to witness Dashera celberation. The appellant refused to send Smt. Manju along with them. But Manju prepared herself to go along with her sisters. The appellant told Manju that he would take her to Bhikampur on that very day. In the mean-time Sheela caught hold the hand of Manju and started to take her along with them forcibly. The appellant got Manjus hand released from that of Sheelas hand. Thereupon both of her sister-in-laws started abusing him and in exchange the also abused them. Ultimately Sheela and Rajkumari left the hotel room muttering abuses to the appellant. Manju became annoyed with he appellant as a result of this incident. The appellant tried to pacify her and thereafter he went inside the bath room to take a bath. Soon thereafter he heard the cry of Manju that she was burning. He rushed out from the bath room and saw that Manju was burning. He tried to extinguish the fire due to which he also received burns on his hairs, eye-brows, bread and on several other parts. He raised a cry to rescue his wife from the fire. Two persons staying in nearby rooms in the hotel came and they threw water to extinguish the fire. He then saw that Manju had thrown her ornaments and watches on the floor of the room. According to the appellant, there was no Kerosene tin in the room. He raised a cry to rescue his wife from the fire. Two persons staying in nearby rooms in the hotel came and they threw water to extinguish the fire. He then saw that Manju had thrown her ornaments and watches on the floor of the room. According to the appellant, there was no Kerosene tin in the room. The appellant then took Manju to the hospital where the doctors admitted Manju and the appellant in the hospital. The appellant has stated that his sister-in-laws have given false statements in the court because of the quarrel that had taken place in the hotel room on the issue of not sending Manju and that false case had been foisted on him regarding the murder of Manju. ( 9 ) WHILE Rameshwar Lal P. W. 3 was the Manager, Chunni Nath alias Teenu Singh P. W. 10 was a weaiter in the Hotel Roopam at Bikaner. Rameshwar Lal P. W. 3 was sitting at the counter of the hotel. He has deposed that at about 8. 30 P. M. , he heard a cry bachao bachaofrom the first floor of the hotel premises. He went upstairs and found that the appellant was raising the above cry. Wife of the appellant was burning inside the hotel Room No. 11. Rameshwarlal asked the appellant and also servants of the hotel to take out Manju from the room. Neither wife of the appellant was speaking nor Rameshwarlal had any talks with the appellant at that time. Rameshwarlal telephoned to the hospital for an ambulance and on its arrival both Smt. Manju and the appellant were shifted to the hospital. Rameshwarlal deposes that hands of the appellant were found burnt by him. Rameshwarlal did not smell the odour of kerosene oil inside the room. It may be mentioned that Rameshwarlal P. W. 3 was declared hostile by the prosecution and was permitted to be cross- examined by the latter. Rameshwar disowned various portions of his police statement Ex. P. 4 wherein it was recorded that Manju was telling that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and had burnt her and that her appellant had told that Manju had bad character in as much as she used to associate herself with other persons and, therefore, he burnt her by kerosene oil. P. 4 wherein it was recorded that Manju was telling that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and had burnt her and that her appellant had told that Manju had bad character in as much as she used to associate herself with other persons and, therefore, he burnt her by kerosene oil. Rameshwarlal stated that although police had made enquiries from him but it had not recorded any statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. ( 10 ) AS already stated, Chunni Nath alias Teenu Singh P. W. 10 was employed as a waiter in Roopam Hotel on the day of the incident. He gave up his job in Roopam Hotel some time in May 1982 and on the day his statement was recorded in the trial court he was serving at Shanker hotel. Chunni Nath has deposed that Rameshwarlal P. W. 3 had told him that fire had broken out in Room No. 11 of the hotel, which was upstairs. He along with Braj Ratan And Rameshwarlal went upstairs and he saw that Manju was burning inside the room and was crying that she was burnt. Rameshwarlal asked the appellant to take out Manju from the room. Chunni Nath brought a blanket and handed it over to the appellant. The appellant then took out Manju from inside the room and wrapped her with the blanket. Rameshwarlal asked the appellant as to what had happened to which the appellant replied that Randi (prostitute Manju) met several persons. Manju retorted that the appellant had burnt her after sprinkling kerosene oil and he may now remain happy. The appellant took out Manju from the room and due to which his hands were also slightly burnt. According to Chunni Nath, there was a tine of kerosene oil there. ( 11 ) IT appears to us that Rameshwarlal P. W. 3 Manager of Roopam Hotel, is suppressing the truth by disowning his police statement. It is very difficult to believe and highly unnatural that despite the fact that a lady was burning in Room No. 11 of his hotel and he had himself gone upstairs on hearing the cry. Rameshwarlal PW. 3, as Manager of the hotel would not even ask the appellant as to how the lady caught fire. It is very difficult to believe and highly unnatural that despite the fact that a lady was burning in Room No. 11 of his hotel and he had himself gone upstairs on hearing the cry. Rameshwarlal PW. 3, as Manager of the hotel would not even ask the appellant as to how the lady caught fire. His statement that neither he talked with the appellant nor the appellant told him anything about how the burning incident took place only exposes that Rameshwarlal P. W. 3 was a witness of untruth. He gave the above statement for the simple reason that his mental faculties were not fertile enough to concoct a story at the spur of the moment when his statement was being recorded. In any event, it is apparent that he was suppressing the truth. Chunnilal P. W. 10, who was waiter in the hotel, has clearly stated that Manju had told that the appellant had burnt her after sprinkling kerosene oil and the appellant complained that Manju used to have relations with several persons. It is true that Chunni Nath was not cited as a prosecution witness in the charge-sheet filed by the police, but it is quite clear that his statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. had been recorded by the police on the very next day of the incident and the Public Prosecutor had applied to the Sessions Judge, Pali on September 21, 1982 to examine Chunni Nath and that application was allowed. In such circumstances, it cannot be argued that Chunni Nath was a latter induction as prosecution witness. We find no reason to doubt the testimony of Chunni Nath that Smt. Manju had told that she was burnt by the appellant after sprinkling kerosene oil on her and that there was a kerosene tin in Room No. 11 of the hotel. ( 12 ) ON receiving a telephonic call from P. B. M. Hospital, Bikaner from the Medical Jurist Dr. P. N. Mathur P. W. 2, Ramchander Singh, A. S. I. of Kotgate Police Station reached the hospital few minutes before 10. 30 P. M. and he recorded the dying declaration Ex. P. 18 of Smt. Manju. According to Ramchander Singh P. W. 11. Smt. Manju was in a fit condition to give a statement. He also obtained an endorsement on Ex. 30 P. M. and he recorded the dying declaration Ex. P. 18 of Smt. Manju. According to Ramchander Singh P. W. 11. Smt. Manju was in a fit condition to give a statement. He also obtained an endorsement on Ex. P. 18 from the doctor on duty that the patient was fit for giving statement and that the statement was taken in his presence. The time given in the endorsement of the doctor is 10. 30 P. M. The contents of the dying declaration Ex. P. 18 have already been reproduced above and need not be repeated. It is clear from this dying declaration that Manju stated that the appellant asked her as to whose house she had gone and hooded at her vulgar abuses. The appellant poured on her kerosene oil and burnt her. Simultaneously Ramchander Singh had also sent an application Ex. P. 19 to the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner requesting the latter to come to the hospital to record the dying declaration of Smt. Manju. Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma P. W. 12 reached the hospital. The Judicial Magistrate had taken the opinion of the doctor on duty regarding the witness of Smt. Manju to give a statement. The doctor made an endorsement G to H on Ex. P. 20 to the effect that the patient was fit for giving statement though injection morphine had been given to her. According to the Judicial Magistrate, when he reached the hospital, mother of Manju was at the hospital and she was sent out. He denied the suggestion that sisters of Manju were also present, there. No cross-examination whatsoever was made on behalf of the accused with Ramchander Singh P. W. 11 or with Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma P. W. 12 suggesting in any way that Smt. Manju was at that time unconscious or was not fit to give statements to them. Before the judicial Magistrate No. 2 also, Smt. Manju told that the appellant was a man of suspicious mind and told Smt. Manju to keep a paramour. She also told that the appellant sprinkled kerosene oil on her and burnt her. ( 13 ). Sheela P. W. 8 and Rajkumari P. W. 9, real elder sister of Manju, also reached 8. P. M. at Hospital, Bikaner. Obviously they could not reach the hospital immediately after the incident as they had no knowledge that Smt. Manju has been burnt. ( 13 ). Sheela P. W. 8 and Rajkumari P. W. 9, real elder sister of Manju, also reached 8. P. M. at Hospital, Bikaner. Obviously they could not reach the hospital immediately after the incident as they had no knowledge that Smt. Manju has been burnt. It was at about 9. 30 P. M. that Vinay Kumar P. W. 6, son of Rajkumari P. W. 9, came to know from a person who had come to take a cycle on hire from him that Manohars sister Manju bad been burnt. Vinay Kumar then closed his cycle shop and went to his house and informed her mother Rajkumari of the incident. Rajkumari then went to the house of her elder sister Sheela P. W. 8 and informed the latter of the incident. Both the sisters started on foot from the house of Sheela, hired a tonga from the bus stand and reached P. B. M. Hospital, Bikaner between 10. 45 P. M. and 11. 00 P. M. Smt. Manju told her sisters Sheela and Rajkumari that after taking her to Roopam Hotel from Sheelas house, the appellant asked Manju as to with whom she had met that day. The appellant also gave a beating to her. He took off the ornaments, which Manju was wearing. Then the appellant poured kerosene oil on Manju and burnt her. The appellant also tried to run away from the hotel but he was stopped from getting out. This was thus another dying declaration which Smt. Manju made to her real sisters. Both Sheela and Rajkumari have denied and refuted the suggestion advanced to them on behalf of the appellant that they had gone to Roopam Hotel to take Smt. Manju with them to witness Dashera celebration or that on refusing permission by him to Manju to go with them because he had to go from Bikaner by night train, the two sisters forcibly started taking Manju with them after catching her hand and the appellant released Manjus hand. Both of them stated that they did not even visit Roopam Hotel. It was quite natural for Sheela and Rajkumari to go to hospital on hearing that Smt. Manju had been burnt and was admitted in the hospital. It was equally natural for them to enquire from Smt. Manju as to how all that had happened. Both of them stated that they did not even visit Roopam Hotel. It was quite natural for Sheela and Rajkumari to go to hospital on hearing that Smt. Manju had been burnt and was admitted in the hospital. It was equally natural for them to enquire from Smt. Manju as to how all that had happened. The- making of the above dying declaration by Smt. Manju appears to us to be quite truthful and credible. Manju was at the house of Sheela herself upto 5. 30 or 6. 00 P. M. that day. If there would have been any idea to take Smt. Manju to witness Dashera celebration, that would have been put forward by Sheela to Manju and the appellant at her house itself and more so when the appellant had told in the morning to Sheela that he would take dinner at the house of Sheela during that night. The appellant came back to the house of Sheela at about 5. 30 or 6. 00 P. M. and after only taking a cup of tea, took Smt. Manju along with him to Roopam Hotel without taking dinner at the house of Sheela as told in the morning and even on a Dashera day. ( 14 ) MR. M. M. Singhvi, appering for the appellant, strenuously urged that two written dying declarations Ex. p. 18 and Ex. p. 20 as well as the oral dying declarations are neither genuine nor truthful because the prosecution has failed to establish that at the time of recording of Ex. p. 18 and Ex. P. 20 Smt. Manju was in a fit state to give a statement. According to him, the condition of Smt. Manju was very poor and critical. The dying declarations do not appear to be voluntary but were the result of prompting. It was urged that the dying declarations were contradictory. The version given in the dying declarations of the deceased Smt. Manju is also not corroborated by any independent witness. On the order hand, there are circumstances in the case which negative the truthfulness of the dying declaration as well as the prosecution case. There is no explanation to the large number of bum injuries sustained by the appellant. According to the testimony of Dr. P. N. Mathur, there was no smell of kerosene oil in the body of Smt. Manju deceased. There is no explanation to the large number of bum injuries sustained by the appellant. According to the testimony of Dr. P. N. Mathur, there was no smell of kerosene oil in the body of Smt. Manju deceased. The appellant bad himself taken Smt. Manju to the hospital and got her admitted there. The place of the incident was a room in the hotel and it should not be believed that the appellant would commit such an act at such a place. It was urged that Smt. Manju in a fit of anger had committed suicide because the appellant did not allow her to go along with her sisters to witness Dashera celebration as he had to leave for Bhikampur that night along with Smt. Manju. ( 15 ) THE earliest to reach Room No. 11 of Roopam Hotel were Rameshwarlal P. W. 3 and Chunni Nath P. W. 10. While Rameshwarlal P. W. 3 has suppressed the truth by deposing that he did not even enquire from the appellant as to how Smt. Manju caught fire, which conduct in the circumstances was highly improbable and unnatural Chunni Nath P. W. 10 clearly deposed that Manju had told that her husband had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil and lighting it. The appellant also told that Smt. Manju used to associate herself with several persons. Chunninath had no axe to grind as against the appellant to falsely impute the above statements as having been made by Smt. Manju and the appellant. It was Rameshwarlal P. W. 3 who had asked the appellant to take out Smt. Manju from the foom. Chunni Nath brought a blanket and Smt. Manju was brought out from the room. It is clear that in the process of the appellant bringing out Smt. Manju from the room in a burning state, the appellant also was bound to sustain burns on his body. The burns on the body of the appellant were mainly on his face, neck, shoulder and fore-arms. The burns involved were 10 to 1s% of total body surface area. These much burns were bound to be sustained by the appellant when he brought out Smt. Manju burning in flames in the rooms of the hotel. Ramchander Singh P. W. 11, who recorded dying declaration Ex. p. 18 of Smt. Manju has deposed that Manju was in a state of giving statement. These much burns were bound to be sustained by the appellant when he brought out Smt. Manju burning in flames in the rooms of the hotel. Ramchander Singh P. W. 11, who recorded dying declaration Ex. p. 18 of Smt. Manju has deposed that Manju was in a state of giving statement. Ramchander Singh had also obtained endorsement G to H on Ex. p. 18 from the doctor that the patient was fit for giving statement and that the statement was taken in his presence. The same was the state of affairs with regard to the 3rd dying declaration recorded by Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma Judicial Magistrate No. 2. Bikaner (Ex. p. 20) at 10. 45 P. M. The dying declarations Ex. p. 18 and Ex. p. 20 were recorded before Sheela and Rajkumari, sisters of Smt. Manju had reached P. B. M. Hospital. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that dying declarations Ex. p. 18 and Ex. p. 20 were tainted or tutored by near relations of Manju. ( 16 ) AS already stated, Sheela and Rajkumari were real elder sisters of Smt. Manju and they were bound to enquire from the latter as to how she sustained these burn injuries. To them also Smt. Manju told that it was the appellant who had poured kerosene on Smt. Manju and had burnt her. It was urged that different thing has been imputed to Smt. Manju in the four dying declarations alleged to have been given by her. We do not find any material difference on the crucial point as to why and who sprinkled kerosene oil on Smt. Manju and who burnt her. Chunnilal P. W. 10 has deposed that the appellant had complained that Smt. Manju associated hereself with several persons and the appellant poured kerosene oil on the body of Smt. Manju and burnt her. The same thing is narrated in the dying declaration Ex. p. 18. The only further narration found in Ex. p. 18 is that Smt. Manju was married to the appellant 5 months before the incident and she had come to Roopam Hotel along with her husband from her sisters house. The only new thing found in Ex. P. 20 is that the appellant had drank wine. Dying declaration made to Sheela and Rajkumari was on the lines mentioned in Ex. p. 18 and also deposed by Chunni Nath. The only new thing found in Ex. P. 20 is that the appellant had drank wine. Dying declaration made to Sheela and Rajkumari was on the lines mentioned in Ex. p. 18 and also deposed by Chunni Nath. The substance remains the same that the appellant suspected the character of Smt. Manju and, therefore, he sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and burnt her. The appellant was posted at Bhikampur. He was recently married. He bad occasion to come to Bikaner to which Smt. Manju belonged. Manjus two sisters, mother and brother were living at Bikaner. The appellant stayed at Bikaner on 7th and 8th October, 1981. It appears to us that during these two days stay at Bikaner, the appellant came to know something adverse against the character of Smt. Manju at Bikaner. This was bound to pain him to learn that his newly married wife was a lady of doubtful character. This led him to burn Smt. Manju in room No. 11 of Roopam Hotel at about 8. 30 P. M. Although in the morning the appellant had told Sheela that he would take his dinner at the residence of Sheela, but he did not take dinner at Sheelas residence and soon after return from office at about 5. 30 or 6 P. M. brought Smt. Manju back to Roopam Hotel. It may be mentioned that in his grounds of appeal, the appellant has mentioned as under: It may be mentioned that the accused appellant was a Government employee and was posted at Bhikampur and on the fateful day had gone to Bikaner to fetch his wife and that his wife and that his wife had voluntarily and by free will accompanied him. He had also purchased house hold articles for daily use. Bhikampur is a small village and it is a fact that the appellant had purchased house-hold articles of daily use from Bikaner. Kerosene oil is an article of daily use and it had been purchased by the appellant from Bikaner. This fact finds support-from the fact that even after kerosene oil was sprinkled on Smt. Manju, there remained at least 8 litres kerosene oil in the tin. Kerosene oil is an article of daily use and it had been purchased by the appellant from Bikaner. This fact finds support-from the fact that even after kerosene oil was sprinkled on Smt. Manju, there remained at least 8 litres kerosene oil in the tin. The appellant had purchased full tin of kerosene oil from Bikaner as a house-hold article for his daily use at Bhikampur and that was why the tin of kerosene oil was found in the room in which the appellant and Smt. Manju were staying. The appellant had, therefore, necessary combustible article like kerosene oil available with him in room No. 11 of Roopam Hotel to burn his wife Smt. Manju whose chastity and character the appellant very much doubted. As to the argument that Dr. P. N. Mathur p. W. 20 has deposed in cross-examination that there was no kerosene oil smell on the body of Smt. Manju at the time of her examination, Smt. Manju was admittedly wearing a nylon Sari which is very speedily burnt by fire. Practically entire Sari was burnt. The burnt area involved was about 90 to 95% of the total body surface of Smt. Manju. In such circumstances, it was difficult to find smell of kerosene oil either on the Sari which had completely burnt or on the body whose surface area to the extent of 90 to 95% was burnt. ( 17 ) CASE law may also be touched. It has been held in State of Assam v. Mafizuddin Ahmed1 that that there can be conviction on the basis of dying declaration and it is not at all necessary to have corroboration provided that the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is a truthful dying declaration and not vitiated in any other manner. ( 18 ) IT is significant to note that in cross-examination of the witness proving the dying declarations in the instant case, no questions were put as to the state of health of the deceased and no suggestion was made on behalf of the appellant that the deceased was not in a fit state of health to make the dying declarations. None of the witnesses who recorded the dying declaration or before whom oral dying declarations were made could be attributed with any kind of ill feeling against the appellant. There is nothing to show that Smt. Manju had become unconscious. None of the witnesses who recorded the dying declaration or before whom oral dying declarations were made could be attributed with any kind of ill feeling against the appellant. There is nothing to show that Smt. Manju had become unconscious. She had died after four days of the alleged incident, Ramchander Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who recorded the dying declaration Ex. P. 18 and who lodged the F. I. R. on its basis did not investigate the case. The case was investigation by Sitaram P. W. 15. Two sisters Sheela and Rajkumari had arrived at the hospital after the dying declarations Ex. P. 18 and Ex. 20 had already been recorded and, therefore, there was no question of their prompting Smt. Manju to give statement against her husband. The doctor attested the dying declarations by noting that Smt. Manju was in fit condition to make the statement. Minor differences in the language used in the various dying declarations only added to their credibility. Shadow of death was thus the best guarantee of the truth of the statements made by a dying person regarding the causes or circumstances leading to her death which were absolutely fresh in her mind and were untainted by any other consideration except speaking the truth. We are satisfied that the dying declarations made before Chunnilal, Ramchander Singh, Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner and before Sheela and Rajkumari were truthful, coherent and consistent. There was no legal impediment in founding the conviction on such dying declarations. The deceased had given a short statement which was a proof of the manner in which she was burnt, The shortness of the statement itself appears to be the guarantee of the truth. Reference 1. AIR 1983 SC 274 . in this connection may be made to the decisions in Surajdeo Oza and others v. State of Bihar2 and Jaya Raj v. State of Tamil Nadu3 We are satisfied about the truthfullness credibility and varacity of the four dying declarations and hold that the appellant was rightly convicted for the offence under section 302, I. P. C. by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner. ( 19 ) THERE is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.