Judgment Navin Chandra Sharma, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 2, 1989 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa, in Sessions Case No. 40/8 8 whereby the appellant was held guilty Under Section 302 and 498-A IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-Under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence Under Section 498-A IPC. 2. The appellant is the husband of Smt. Prem, who had died on 16.88 on account of burn injuries. The marriage of the victim Smt. Prem with the appellant Ganpat Lal had taken place only two years prior to the unfortunate incident. The report of the incident was made on the same day at 10,00 AM by Shri Badri Narayan, who is the father of the victim Smt. Prem. The report is Exhibit-P-9 on the record. In the said report, it was given out that the marriage of Smt. Prem with the appellant Ganpat Lal had taken place about 1 years ago. It was also stated that during the period of their matrimonial relations, the husband-appellant used to beat Smt. Prem and he also made a demand of Rs. 20,000/-for establishing a flour mill. However, this demand was not fulfilled by her father and this also annoyed to him on account of which he used to beat her to put pressure on her to get the money from her parents. It was also stated in the said report that Smt. Prem was burnt by her husband in the night and he was intimated about the incident by one Mehboob Shah of Papadda at 8.00 AM On this report, a case was registered Under Section 498-A & 307 IPC. 3. It appears that on account of the burn injuries, Smt. Prem died on the same day. The post-mortem of her dead body was conducted by PW. Dr. P.C. Gupta and Dr. M.C. Sharma on 16.88. At the time of conducting post-mortem, the doctor found blackening of the skin over face, chest, abdomen, back and other limbs of the body. As per the opinion of doctor, the burns were 100% over the body and were ante mortem. The cause of death, in the opinion of doctor, was shock (synoope) due to extensive burns. At the time of conducting post-mortem, the doctor found blackening of the skin over face, chest, abdomen, back and other limbs of the body. As per the opinion of doctor, the burns were 100% over the body and were ante mortem. The cause of death, in the opinion of doctor, was shock (synoope) due to extensive burns. The police also prepared the inquest report and site plan of the occurrence. The burnt soil and control soil were also seized from the place of occurrence. The police also seized a bottle in which there was kerosene in small quantity and a match box was also seized from the place of occurrence. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed against the appellant in the Court learned Magistrate, and thereafter it was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa, where he was tried for the offences Under Section 302 & 498-A IPC. .4. During the trial, the prosecution examine as many as 15 witnesses. Two witnesses were examined in defence. Out of the 15 witnesses. PW. 2 is Dr. P.C. Gupta, who had conducted the post-mortem of the dead body. PW. 4 Gordhan, PW. 5 Birdi Chand, PW.6 Jagan and PW.9 Basanti Lal are the witnesses in whose presence, the deceased Smt. Prem had made oral dying declaration. PW.3 Kanhaiya Lal is a formal witness of inquest report Exhibit-P-3. Similarly, PW.8 Kailash is also a formal witness of site plan and the recovery of burnt clothes, dan etc. PW. 10 Badri Narayan is the informant, who is the father of the victim Smt. Prem. PW. .11 is Brijendra Singh, ASI who was an Investigating Officer. PW 12 is Bhanwarlal, ASI, before whom the report Exhibit-9 was made by Badri Narayan. PW. 13 is Inder Kumar, Dy. S.P., who had also made the investigation in the case. PW. 14 is Chandra Prakash Joshi, who was A.D.M., Dausa on 16.88 and had prepared the inquest report Exhibit-P-3. PW. 15 is compounder Satya Narayan, who was working as a compounder in Ram Nursing Home at Dausa, where Smt. Prem was brought in a burnt condition. 5. Theplea of the accused was of denial. He also pleaded alibi stating that he had gone to Delhi on 6th June, 1988 for purchasing goods. PW. 15 is compounder Satya Narayan, who was working as a compounder in Ram Nursing Home at Dausa, where Smt. Prem was brought in a burnt condition. 5. Theplea of the accused was of denial. He also pleaded alibi stating that he had gone to Delhi on 6th June, 1988 for purchasing goods. According to him, after 8 or 10 days of the death of his wife, he received a letter from his brother about her death by burning and, therefore, he returned back to the village and was arrested by the police. However, the said letter was not produced in the Court. 6. Thelearned Trial Court placed reliance on the testimony of PW. 10 Badri Narayan, the father of the victim. He also placed reliance on the testimony of PW. 4 Gordhan, PW. 5 Birdi Chand, PW. 6 Jagan and PW. 9 Basanti Lal, in whose presence the deceased had made oral dying declaration implicating the appellant to have burnt her. The Trial Court rejected the testimony of the defence witnesses. The Trial Court also found that the death of Smt. Prem had taken place at her in-laws house and the marriage of Smt. Prem had taken place with the appellant only two years back of the occurrence. Thus, the death had taken place within 7 years of the marriage and the death had taken place, in such circumstances for which no explanation was given by the accused person. The Trial Court also found that after the incident, the accused had absconded from the place of occurrence and he came to be arrested on June 23, 1988. 7. Thus, relying upon all these pieces of evidence, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 8. PW. 10 Badri Narayan, the father of the victim Smt. Prem, has stated that her marriage with the appellant Ganpat had taken place on June 28, 1986. He has also stated that after the marriage, the appellant used to beat her daughter and also demanded money from her. He was demanding Rs. 20,000/-for establishing a flour mill. According to this witness, he was unable to pay this amount and after one month of the said demand, his daughter was murdered. He has also stated that after the marriage, the appellant used to beat her daughter and also demanded money from her. He was demanding Rs. 20,000/-for establishing a flour mill. According to this witness, he was unable to pay this amount and after one month of the said demand, his daughter was murdered. He has also stated that he was intimated about the death of his daughter by one Mehboob Shah who gave it near the Octroi Post of Dausa and, thereafter, he made a report to the police which is Exhibit-P-9 of the record. In cross-examination, this witness further stated that on getting the information, he went to Ram Clinic to find his daughter but she was not there. The demand of money was made orally and no letter was written in this connection by the appellant. He further reiterated that the demand of money was made a month prior to the occurrence. He also stated that his daughter was illiterate. On a careful examination of this statement, we do not find that any thing has come in the cross-examination to discard his testimony. The learned Counsel for the appellant also could not point out anything on the basis of which it can be said that this witness was not making a true version. 9. PW.4 Gordhan is a resident of Papadda and his house is situated at a distance of 2-3 fields from the house of the appellant. He has stated that on the day of incident at 8.00 or 8.30 AM, he was standing outside the Chabutra of Johari Lal and he had gone inside his house along with Birda Mali, Basanta and Srilal. It may be stated that Johari La is the father of the appellant. This witness further stated that Birda Mali asked Smt. Prem to tell that had happened with her. On his asking, she replied that her husband sprinkled kerosene and thereafter burnt her. She was lying on a cot at that time. In cross-examination, this witness stated that she was not asked at that time as to why she was burnt. He also stated that his house is situated in the same mohalla and he heard the news of the burning of Smt. Prem and, thereafter, he went where Smt. Prem was lying. She was lying on a cot at that time. In cross-examination, this witness stated that she was not asked at that time as to why she was burnt. He also stated that his house is situated in the same mohalla and he heard the news of the burning of Smt. Prem and, thereafter, he went where Smt. Prem was lying. He also stated that they had seen the body of Smt. Prem and her face was having marks of bums. Similar is the statement of PW.5 Birdi Chand. He has also stated that Smt. Prem was lying on a cot and on his asking, she told that she was burnt by her husband after sprinkling kerosene oil. He also stated that her ‘Jeth’ (husband’s elder brother) tried to save her. This witness has also been cross-examined at length. In cross-examination, he has stated that the hairs of the sculp of Smt. Prem were also burnt and as her body was covered with a cloth, they did not see her after removing the cloth. He also stated that at the time when she made oral dying declaration besides him, PW.4 Gordhan and PW.9 Basanti Lal were present and one small girl of Johari Lal was also there and none else was present. He then stated that Smt. Prem was taken in a jeep, but he does not know where she was taken and who had brought the jeep. PW.9 Basanti Lal is also witness of the same fact and he has also given similar statement about giving oral dying declaration by Smt. Prem. He has stated that on asking by Bird Chand, Smt. Prem told that her husband had burnt her after sprinkling kerosene oil and that her ‘Jeth’ (husband’s brother) tried to save her. This a witness is also a neighbour, as his house is situated near the house of the appellant after 5-6 houses. He also stated that they were 10-20 persons at the house of the appellant when they had reached there and he went inside along with Birdi Chand and Gordhan. This witness then stated that when Smt. Prem made oral dying declaration, he Gordhan and Birdi Chand were present and other persons were standing at a distance. He also stated that they were 10-20 persons at the house of the appellant when they had reached there and he went inside along with Birdi Chand and Gordhan. This witness then stated that when Smt. Prem made oral dying declaration, he Gordhan and Birdi Chand were present and other persons were standing at a distance. He then, stated that they had disclosed this fact to the police on 2nd or 3rd day when the police had come there, but did not disclose this fact to anybody else. 10. PW. 6 Jagan is also witness of oral dying declaration made to him by Smt.Prem. As per his statement, he had gone to the house of the appellant and in the chowk of the ‘Gwari’, Smt. Prem was lying on a cot. He had a talk with Smt. Prem and she disclosed that she was burnt by her husband who sprinkled kerosine and then lit the fire. In cross-examination, this witness stated that there were 50-60 persons when this statement was made by her. He was at the bus-stand he went at the house of the appellant on being asked by Kamla. This witness also stated that when the aforesaid disclosure was made by Smt. Prem she was weeping and was telling to meet with her parents. Then, he stated that her clothes were changed when she was taken in a jeep and the room where she was burnt was closed. He went inside the room also and found the clothes, ‘gadda’ etc. burnt. One bottle was lying in an ‘overa’ in the room. Smt. Prem did not tell him as to why she was burnt nor he asked her about this fact. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the testimony of the aforesaid four witnesses before whom the oral dying declaration is said to have been made by Smt. Prem, are not reliable at all. According to the Counsel, the evidence of oral dying declaration is of a very week nature and before this evidence is believed, it should be tested on strict scrutiny. Counsel argued, that the conduct of these witnesses of not disclosing this fact to anybody was unnatural that their testimony should be disbelieved on this count alone. According to the Counsel, the evidence of oral dying declaration is of a very week nature and before this evidence is believed, it should be tested on strict scrutiny. Counsel argued, that the conduct of these witnesses of not disclosing this fact to anybody was unnatural that their testimony should be disbelieved on this count alone. Learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and they have made improvements from their statements recorded by the police. The learned Counsel also argued that Smt. Prem was not in a position to make a statement after having received 100% burns. .12. We have given our careful consideration to the above submissions. On a close scrutiny, we find that none of them is sustainable. It is not disputed that all the aforesaid witnesses are the residents of the same village where the occurrence took place and their houses are not far away from the house of the appellant. Nothing has come on the record that they were having any animosity against the appellant so as to falsely implicate him. In the normal course, when a person of the same mohalla comes to know about such incident, then he goes to enquire about the happening and there is nothing unusual if these witnesses had gone to the house of the appellant after having come to know that appellant’s wife was burnt. All the four witnesses are consistent on the point that Smt. Prem had disclosed that the appellant had burnt her after sprinkling the kerosene oil. So far the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that these witnesses did not make any disclosure to other persons about the fact of making dying declaration of the deceased is concerned, suffice to say that other persons were already there when Smt. Prem had made her disclosure and it was know to all at that time that she was burnt by her husband. Thus, there was nothing to be disclosed to other persons about the incident. Thus, there was nothing to be disclosed to other persons about the incident. It is also noteworthy that they gave the statements to the police the very day, the police approached to them to record their statements which have been recorded on 16.88 itself Therefore, in our view, this argument has no substance that the conduct of these witnesses was unnatural or improbable when they did not disclose others the fact of burning the victim Smt. Prem by her husband. The argument that the statements were recorded by the police after two days has also no merit. It may be stated here that these witnesses gave the statements to the police at the very first day when the police reached to them to make interrogations. No question has been asked to the investigating officer as to why he did not record the statements of these witnesses on 11th or 12th June, 1988. In the absence of any material on the record, as well as, in the absence of any motive on the part of these witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant, no importance can be attached to this argument. The statements of these witnesses are straightforward. Generally, the neighbour do not come to depose against a neighbour and as such their statements cannot be brushed aside lightly. We are fully convinced that the trial Court committed no error in placing reliance on their testimony. The argument of learned Counsel that oral dying declaration made by Smt. Prem should be rejected as she has not in a position to give a statement has also no merit. It is no doubt true that when the conviction rests of a dying declaration, it must inspire confidence so as to make it safe to act upon it. It is also true that Smt. Prem had 100% burns as stated by the doctor PW.2 Mr. Gupta. However, from the post mortem report Exhibit-P-2, it is not borne out that the internal vital organs of the deceased were demaged or smashed so that she could not be in a fit stage of mind and to make any credible statement relating to the circumstances which resulted in her death. No question has been put to the doctor that after the extensive burns, the deceased could not be in a position to make the statement. No question has been put to the doctor that after the extensive burns, the deceased could not be in a position to make the statement. In the absence of any material on record and taking into consideration that the internal organs of Smt. Prem were not damaged and the fact that independent aforesaid four witnesses have categorically stated that Smt. Prem was in a position to make a statement and she did make a statement in their presence disclosing the circumstances which resulted in her death, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the aforesaid four witnesses. Besides PW. 15 Satya Narayan who was a compounder in Ram Nursing Hone, Dausa, has also stated that one woman of village Papadda was brought in the Nursing Home in a burnt condition and at that time, she was crying. From his statement, it appears that Smt. Prem was in a position to make a statement. Therefore, we do not find any .substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the oral dying declaration made by Smt. Prem is not believable or that she was not in a position to it make. 10.13. Now, it is a settled law that once a dying declaration is found to be true, it can be acted upon without any corroboration. This view has been taken by the Apex Court of the country in Tara Chand Damu Sutar vs. State of Maharashtra, (1962) 2 SCC 775 and Munna Raja vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 3 SCC 104 . From the judgments, it is 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 guarantee 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 untamed or discoloured by any other consideration except speaking the truth. One more important fact is that the dying declaration by the deceased Smt. Prem was made at her in-laws house and there was no ground for her being prompted or tutored by other persons. One more important fact is that the dying declaration by the deceased Smt. Prem was made at her in-laws house and there was no ground for her being prompted or tutored by other persons. It is also noteworthy that her ‘Jeth’ (husband’s elder brother) was also present in the house when she had made a disclosure to the aforesaid four witnesses. Hence there was hardly any chance of tutoring or prompting Smt. Prem to make an oral dying declaration against the appellant. Normally, a wife does not make a statement against her husband. The marriage of Smt. Prem with the appellant had taken place only two years ago, and her death had taken place at her in-laws house within 7 years of her marriage. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellant of his absence after the incident, and the explanation given by him is so unbelievable and was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. It is further noteworthy that the statements of the aforesaid four witnesses finds the corroboration from the medical evidence and the statement of the compounder Satya Narayan also. The net result of the above discussion is that no error has been committed by the trial Court in placing reliance on the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses and convicting the appellant Under Section 498-A and 302 IPC. Consequently this appeal has no merit in it and is hereby dismissed.