JUDGMENT 1. - The Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by his judgment dated June 8, 87, has convicted all the four appellants, for the offence under section 302/34, IPC for causing the death of Smt. Soni, by second and third-degree burns on her body; and has sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. All the four accused have come up in appeal to this Court. 2. Smt. Soni was a young wife, aged 20 years, of Sharvan Kumar PW 3, and was married to him about 6 years before the date of the incident, namely, the morning of Nov. 24,84. Nathuram. Ramgopal, Bodan and Mahadev were fore real brothers. Smt. Bhuri appellant No. 3 is the widow of Ramgopal; and Sharvan, husband of (deceased) Soni and Ratanlal are sons of Ramgopal from Smt. Bhuri. Kishanla, appellant No. 4 is the son of Mahadev, appellant No. 1 This is how the appellants, Sharvan and (deceased) soni were inter-related and were members of the same family. 3. Smt. Soni was daughter of Late Sidanand. from his wife, Smt. Sundari PW 6. Smt. Sundari was widow of Sadanand and had two daughters, namely, Smt. Soni (deceased) and Kamla. Soni was married to Sharvan, son of Ramgopal; and Kamla was married to Kalu, son of Bodan. Moolchand PW 7 was the leal brother of Smt. Soni (deceased). While Smt. Sundari and his son Moolchand lived at Machara. Tehsil-Amer District-Jaipur; Sharvan and (deceased) Soni used to live at Village-Nangal Jaisabora, under PS- Jhotwara, Jaipur. They are Malis by caste. 4. It is not in dispute that on the morning of Nov. 24, 84, Smt. Soai sustained second and third degree burns on substantial parts of her body, including face, eye-brow eye-lasbes scalp-hairs, ne k, upper limb as a whole, chest in upper half, abdomen as a whole, back as a whole, lower limb as a whole except soles and buttocks as a whole They were dry flame burns and dangerous to life. The cause of her death, according to the post-mortom report (Ex. P. 13) was shock due to extensive ante-mortom burns (dry heat). 5. The cause of her death, according to the post-mortom report (Ex. P. 13) was shock due to extensive ante-mortom burns (dry heat). 5. The only question for determination in this case is, whether Smt. Soni was burnt by the appellants by pouring kerosene oil on her and lighting a match-stick to her clothes by Kishanlal appellant, as alleged by the prosecution; or whether, Smt. Soni committed suicide herself as is the case, set up by the appellants, by themselves and through the two defence witnesses, namely, Mangal DW 1 and Gopal DW 2, examined by them. 6. Prosecution witnesses Kamla PW 2, Smt. Sundari PW 6 and Moolchand PW 7 have deposed that Mahadev appellant No. 1 used to harass Smt. Soni through her mother-in-law, Smt. Bhuri and through Ratanlal and Kishanlal. Smt. Soni used to be beaten also sometimes. 7. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the two dying-declarations (Exs. P. 14 & P. 19). Ex. P. 14 was written by Shiv Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASI) PW 15, and under the supervision of the SHO, Ramniwas Yadav PW 14. A telephonic message was received by Ramniwas, SHO, at about 9.15 AM, from Managram, son of Nathuram. that a woman of Nangal Jaisabora, named Smt.,Soni had burnt, whereupon, the SHO, PS-Jhotwara, went to Nangal Jaisabora. There he found that Sharvan, husband of Smt. Soni had made his burnt wife sit in an autorickshaw, in order to take her to hospital. Smt. Soni was taken to hospital and was got admitted there. It was at the hospital that Shiv Singh, ASI wrote the dying declaration (Ex.P. 14) of Smt. Soni. On the basis of this dying-declaration (described as Parcha-Bayan), the SHO, PS-Jhotwara, had registered Crime No. 189/84. under section 307/34, IPC. 8. The salient facts regarding which Smt. Soni gave her statement (Ex. P. 14) to Ramniwas, SHO, were that she was married to Sharvan 6 years back. Her mother-in law Smt. Bhuri, Ratanlal and her uncle-in-law used to harass her and taunt her that she had not brought any dowry in her marriage. About a fortnight before the incident, it was told that Smt. Soni would not allow her husband to pay any money out of the proceeds of sale of land. She was also used to be told that she had not given birth to any child. About a fortnight before the incident, it was told that Smt. Soni would not allow her husband to pay any money out of the proceeds of sale of land. She was also used to be told that she had not given birth to any child. She attributed an intention on the part of Mahadev, Kishan, Smt. Bhuri and Ratanlal, to turn her out of the bouse and to take all her property. The incident was narrated in this manner that on the morning of Nov. 24,84, at about 6 30 O clock her husband Sharvin had gone on his work. She was near her room and was pouring water in a glass. At that time, the appellants came, and after catching hold of her, Ratanlal appellant poured kerosene oil, filled in a Bhagona' (pan) over her body, and all of them uttered that she be killed. Then, with the intention to kill her, Kishan lighted a match-stick and burnt her body. At that time. Mahadev was standing there. Her sister Kamla, wife of Khemsingh tenant and Bodan tried to extinguish the fire. Her mother-in-law, Smt. Bhuri; her husbands brother Ratanlal; and Kishan ran away. She also came on the road running. Some time thereafter, her husband come from his work and got her admitted to hospital. 9. Shiv Swaroop Sharma, SI, PS-Jhotwara, made an app icaticn (Ex. P. 18), to the CJM, Jaipur City, Jaipur, stating therein that it was necessary to record dying-declaration of Smt. Soni, and that the CJM might pass ordeis in that respect. The CJM passed an order in the name of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, to record a dying-declaration. This order of the CJM was received by Kundanlal Yaduvanshi, Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, at 10.45 AM, on Nov. 24, 84. He started for the hospital at 11 AM. He went to Ward No. 3-3AB; and started recording dying-declaration of Smt. Soni at 11 20AM and completed the same at 11.30 AM. Shti Yaduvanshi recorded in the beginning that Smt. Soni was in consciousness. One one question was put by the Judicial Magistrate, to Smt. Soni and the question put was as to who had burnt her, or how she had got the burns. Smt. Soni answered that her mother-in-law, her husbands brother Ratanlal, Kishan (her uncle-in-laws son) and her uncle-in-law were the persons. One one question was put by the Judicial Magistrate, to Smt. Soni and the question put was as to who had burnt her, or how she had got the burns. Smt. Soni answered that her mother-in-law, her husbands brother Ratanlal, Kishan (her uncle-in-laws son) and her uncle-in-law were the persons. It was Kishan who had burnt her by lighting a match-stick after catching held of her. He had sprinkled kerosene-oil through an utensil like Bbagona. This incident had taken place at about 7 AM. She then narrated an incident of one day prior to Nov. 24, 84. Then, she also mentioned the other reasons for harassing her Lastly, she stated that her sister Kamla who was married to Kalu, son of Bodan; & the wife of Khemsingh tenant, had extinguished the fire. Bodan had also come there. She herself had come out running, of her . house, on the road. Then, her husband had come there and brought her to hospital. Below the statement of Smt. Soni, her thumb impression at place marked "X" on Ex.P.19, was taken. And, the doctor recorded a note A to B that the patient was in a fit state to give statement. This note was recorded at 11.30 A.M., by the doctor. Shri Yaduvanshi recorded a concluding note that during the time her statement was being recorded. Smt. Soni was, again and again, asking for water, and was complaining of burn-sensation. It was mentioned that throughout the time her statement was recorded, she was in conscionesses; and the doctor verified that she was in fit state to give statement. 10. The prosecution has strongly relied upon the two dying-declarations (Ex.P.14& P.19) respectively recorded by the SHO of the police station and the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City. Jaipur. 11. The Additional Sessions Judge No. 5. Jaipur City, Jaipur, has believed the correctness and truthfulness of the two dying-declarations. He has also believed the statement of Kamla PW2. sister of the deceased; and also of Sn t Sundari, mother of the deceased, to whom, the deceased is said to have narrated that Smt. Bhuri appellant had closed her mouth; Ratanlal had sprinkled keiosene-oil Mahadev had brought the cistern containing kerosene-oil; and Kishan had lighted the match-stick, to burn Smt. Soni. Relying upon all these evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty; and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 12. Relying upon all these evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty; and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 12. A dying-declaration, if found to be true, can be acted upon, without corroboration (See State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav & others 1985 (1) SCC 552 ) . 13. The law relating to dying-declarations is that 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 & result of either tutoring, prompting or of 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 has a clear opportunity to observe and identify his assailants, and that he was making the statement without any influence or rancor. Once the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, it can be sufficient to find conviction even without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying-declaration cannot from the sole basis of conviction, unless, it is corroborated. Each case must be determined on its facts, taking in view, the circumstances in which the declaration was made. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying-declaration is a weaker kind of evidence thin other pieces of evidence A dying-declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence, and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances, and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence. A dying-declaration, which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate, in he proper manner that is to say, in the form of question and answers, and as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than one which depends upon oral testimony, which suffers from all the infirmities of human memory and human character. In order to test reliability of a dying-declaration, the Court has to keep in view, the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man, for observation that the capacity of the dying man to remember had not impaired at the time while he was making the statement by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement has been consistent throughout, if he had several opportunities of making a dying-declaration, apart from the official record of it, and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the remit of tutoring by interested parties. 14. In the present case, it is even admitted by the defence witnesses Gopal DW 2 that Sharvan, husband of Smt. Soni. had come later on to the spot, after the incident. He has also deposed that the relations between Smt. Soni and her in-laws, were very much strained. Both Mangal DW 1 and Gopal DW 2 have admitted that Smt. Soni was in a burnt state on the road outside the house, where she used to live. Mangal DW 1 has also admitted that Smt. Kamla, sister of Smt. Soni was also present on the road. These two defence witnesses were admittedly not present at the time of the actual incident. They only state that when they reached the place of incident, they inquired from Smt. Soni as to how she was burnt, and that Smt. Soni replied that she had burnt herself. It is not in disputs that Smt. Soni was immediately taken to SMS Medical College, Jaipur, by her husband, and that the police had also reached the spot. The two dying-declarations were recorded in quick succession after Smt. Soni was admitted to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Neither the mother, nor the brother of Smt. Soni had reached the SMS Medical College, Jaipur, before the dying-declarations were recorded. Thus, there was no scope for the mother or brother of the deceased for tutoring Smt. Soni. The Judicial Magistrate had taken a note from the Doctor on Ex. P. 19, testifying that the patient was in a fit state to give statement. Smt. Soni died 2 days after the incident, i. e. on Nov. 26, 84, at 2.30 PM. Thus, she was capable of giving statement. Shri Yaduvanshi, Judicial Magistrate, has stated that when he recorded the statement of Smt. Soni, there was no other person connected with her present. Smt. Soni died 2 days after the incident, i. e. on Nov. 26, 84, at 2.30 PM. Thus, she was capable of giving statement. Shri Yaduvanshi, Judicial Magistrate, has stated that when he recorded the statement of Smt. Soni, there was no other person connected with her present. It is pertinent to note that the only consistency in the two dying-declarations (Exs. P. 14 & P. 19) is that it was Kishan who had lit the match-stick and burnt Smt. Soni. In the dyings declaration recorded before the Judicial Magistrate, it was not stated by Smt. Soni that Ratanlal had sprinkled kerosene-oil on her body from a Bhagona. The tenor and trend in which she has given the statement before the Judicial Magistrate goes to show that it was ail the act of Kishan and not of others. Smt. Soni stated that Kishan had lighted the fire by a match-stick, after catching hold of her. He had sprinkled kerosene-oil upon her, through a 'Bhagona'. Smt. Soni thus clearly refers to Kishan and nobody else. In her dying-declaration which was given to the SHO also. Smt. Soni stated that it was Kishan who had lit the match-stick and burnt her. In the dying-declaration recorded by the SHO, it was stated that it was Ratanlal who had poured kerosene-oil over her body. That fact does not find place in the dying-declaration, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ex. P. 19). No specific act finds attributed as against Smt. Bhuri, Mahadev or Ratanlal except their presence. That was not sufficient to hold Smt. Bhari, Mahadev and Ratanlal guilty of offence under section 302/34, IPC. No prior concert or pre-meditation on the part of all the four appellants, to Dura Smt. Soni, is borne out Tae dytng-declaration, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate is truthful that it was Kishan who had sprinkled kerosene.oil, lit the match-stick and burnt Smt. Soni. 15. Conviction of Kishan can be based solely on the dying-declaration (Ex. P. 19), recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It does not even require corroboration for conviction, In any event, there is also corroboration available from the statement of Smt Kamla PW 2 who was eye-witness to the incident; and also from the fact that Smt. Soni had rushed out of the house on the road. P. 19), recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It does not even require corroboration for conviction, In any event, there is also corroboration available from the statement of Smt Kamla PW 2 who was eye-witness to the incident; and also from the fact that Smt. Soni had rushed out of the house on the road. Had she committed suicide, her conduct would not have like this, and she would have remained in the house. She had rushed out of the house for the simple reason that someone other than herself had burnt her We accept the truthfulness of the dying-declaration (Ex. P. 19). and hold that it is proved that it was Kishan, who had poured kerosene-oil on the body of Smt. Soni and murdered her while seeting fire to her body. Some helpful decisions may be referred to. 16. In Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1957 SC 904 ), Bachhinder Singh was taken to Amritsar Hospital. The doctor informed the police about and Head-Constable Mayaram arrived at the hospital some time after midnight; and in the presense of the doctor, the dying-declaration (Ex. P. H), after getting a certificate from the doctor that the injured person was in a fit state to make a statement, was recorded. The case of the prosecution rested on the dying-declaration of Bachhinder Singh (Ex. P. H.), and on the statement of Narvel Singh PW 12, who was an eye-witness. It was held by the Supreme Court that the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence & was right in accepting the authenticity of the dying-declaration. The High Court had stated that there was no reason for the High Court to record the statement falsely. Then, there was the evidence of the doctor that the statement was made by the deceased voluntarily and there was nobody present to prompt him. 17. In Tarachand Damu Sutar v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1962 SC 130 ', there were three dying-declarations. The first dying-declaration was made by the deceased to her mother, as soon as she had come to the place where the deceased was lying; and in answer to her question, the deceased had replied that it was done by her husband, and also that her husband had set fire to her clothes. A similar statement was given by the deceased to the doctor at the hospital. A similar statement was given by the deceased to the doctor at the hospital. And, the third dying-declaration was given to the Magistrate. Their Lordships, in the case of Tarachand (supra), held that both the trial court and the High Court had found that the deceased had died as a result of the burns caused by the fire, set to her clothes by the appellant, who had sprinkled kerosene-oil on her. This was supported by the dying-declarations, against the correctness of which, no cogent reasons were given or suggested; and a conviction based on such evidence was held to be sustainable by the Supreme Court in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1958 SC 22 ). 18. In Murnu Raja and another v. State of M. P. ( AIR 1976 SC 2199 ) , it was laid down that the statement (Ex. P. 14). made by the deceased at the police station was by way of First Information Report. It was after the information was recorded and indeed because of it that the investigation commenced, and therefore, it w as wrong to say that the statement was made to an investigating officer. The SHO who recorded the statement did not possess the capacity of an investigating officer at the time when he recorded the statement. The statement contained the dying-declaration. 19. In Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar ( 1983 (1) SCC 211 ), Dying-declaration of Sabtari Debi was recorded by the Assistant Inspector of Police. The case of the prosecution was that appellant Ramawati Devi had sprinkled kerosene-oil on the clothes of Sabitri Devi and set fire to the same. Sabitri Devi thereafter started running in flames towards her house and fell down on the road. The High Court relied upon the dying-declaration. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that there is no requirement of law that dying-declaration must necessarily be made to a Magistrate. What evidentiary value or weight has to be attached to such statement, must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In a proper case, it may be permissible to convict a person only on the basis of a dying-declaration, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. What evidentiary value or weight has to be attached to such statement, must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In a proper case, it may be permissible to convict a person only on the basis of a dying-declaration, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. The decisions in the cases of Somnath v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1980 SC 1226 ); Vaswant Narayan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1980 SC 1270 ); Surindra Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration) 1987 (1) SCC 467 ); Suresh v. State of M. P. ( 1987 (2) SCC 32 ); and Kailash Kaur v. State of Punjab ( 1987 (2) SCC 631 ) are also relevant on the point. 21. On a close scrutiny of the dying-declaration (Ex P 19) in the present case, we are of the opinion that it contains the truth that it was Kishan appellant, who had sprinkled Kerosene-oil upon the body of Smt. Soni and had burnt her by lighting a match-stick; and as a result of this act. Smt. Soni breathed her last. The burns sustained by Smt. Soni were of 2nd and 3rd degree and were imminently dangerous to life. It is, therefore, Kishan appellant, who deserves to be convicted under section 302, IPC. The charge against appellants Mahadev, Ratanlal and Smt. Bhuri, is not established by the prosecution; and even, the dying-declaration (Ex P. 19) does not establish the same against them beyond reasonable doubt. These three accused-appellants, therefore, deserve an acquittal. 22. We accordingly partly allow this appeal; set aside the convictions and sentence of appellants Mahadev, Ratanlal and Smt. Bhuri, for offence under section 302/34, IPC, and do hereby acquit them. So far as appellant Kishan, son of Mahadev, concerned, we hold him guilty of offence under section 302, IPC and maintain the sentence of imprisonment for life, awarded to him, by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It may be mentioned that Mahadev and Smt. Bhuri are on bail. Their personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled, and they need not surrender. Ratanlal and Kishan appellants are in jail. Ratanlal will immediately be released from jail, unless warned in some other case. The appeal filed on behalf of Kishan appellant No. 4, is dismissed. It may be mentioned that Mahadev and Smt. Bhuri are on bail. Their personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled, and they need not surrender. Ratanlal and Kishan appellants are in jail. Ratanlal will immediately be released from jail, unless warned in some other case. The appeal filed on behalf of Kishan appellant No. 4, is dismissed. Hebe detained in jail to undergo the sentence of imprisonment, awarded to him by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaiper City Jaipur, by his judgment dated June 8, 1987, and affirmed by this Court, by this judgment.Appeal partly allowed. *******