Y. K. Sabharwal ( 1 ) APPELLANT Sohan Lal has been convicted for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for murder of his wife Smt. Ram Devi and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) IN brief, the prosecution case is that Sohan Lal was addicted to liquor and his wife used to object to it and he used to give her beating. They were previously residing in Sonepat, Haryana and had shifted to Delhi about a month and half before the date of the incident. On 25th June, 1985 at about 7 p. m. when appellant started taking liquor Ram Devi objected and on that Sohanlal started giving her beating. Sohanlal caught hold of Ram Devi by her hairs and dragged her into the room and poured kerosene oil on her from a bottle and set her on fire. She was badly burnt and ran outside the room and her cries attracted many persons. The children of the deceased and the appellant were at home including their son Mahesh. Ram Devi was taken in Police Jeep to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. Her statement was recorded at the hospital in which she stated that her husband was presurrising her to indulge in prostitution and had been bringing some persons with him for that purpose. She was not willing to do so and he used to give her beating. Sohanlal was not doing any work. On the basis of the statement of Ram Devi the case was registered. Ram Devi died in hospital on 30th June, 1985. On consideration of evidence on record the appellant was convicted and sentenced as noticed above. ( 3 ) THE conviction of Sohan Lal is based mainly on dying declaration (Ex. Public Witness. 15/a) made by Smt. Ram Devi at about 9. 45 p. m. on 26th June, 1985 in the hospital which was recorded by SI S. S. Yadav (Public Witness. 20)in the presence of Dr. Anil Malik; the statement of son of the deceased and the appellant Mahesh (Public Witness. 4), of father of the deceased Kewal Ram (Public Witness. 6) and her brother Kanhiya Lal (Public Witness. 5 ). ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that the dying declaration Ex. Public Witness. 20)in the presence of Dr. Anil Malik; the statement of son of the deceased and the appellant Mahesh (Public Witness. 4), of father of the deceased Kewal Ram (Public Witness. 6) and her brother Kanhiya Lal (Public Witness. 5 ). ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that the dying declaration Ex. Public Witness. 15/a is liable to be discarded as the same has not been recorded in question-answer form and that too not by a Magistrate but by a police officer. It is correct that ordinarily the dying declaration should be recorded by a Magistrate and should be in a question and answer form but there is no universal rule that conviction can, under no circumstances,be based on dying declaration recorded by a police officer or when it is not in the question-answer form. The requirement of law is not strictly of the form of the recording the declaration or the person who records it but is whether the dying declaration is true and voluntary and what was stated was correctly recorded and that the statement was made when the deceased was in a fit state of mind and was making the statement without any influence and tutoring. Once the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary that by itself can be made the basis of conviction without any further corroboration. In the present case the dying declaration was recorded soon after the burning incident. There was no question of any tutoring of Ram Devi as no relation of Ram Devi was with her when she was taken to the hospital and when she made the statement. The statement was recorded in the presence of Doctor Anil Malik who gave a certificate Ex. Public Witness. 9/b about the fitness of Ram Devi to make the statement. Though Dr. Malik and Dr. A. K. Singh have not been examined as a prosecution witnesses but it has come in evidence that the where abouts of these doctors were not known. The handwriting and signatures of Dr. Malik and Dr. Singh were proved by Public Witness. 9 who also stated that they had left the hospital and their whereabouts are not known. Public Witness. 9 was not subjected to any cross examination whatsoever on this aspect. The MLC Ex. Public Witness. 9/c recorded by Dr. The handwriting and signatures of Dr. Malik and Dr. Singh were proved by Public Witness. 9 who also stated that they had left the hospital and their whereabouts are not known. Public Witness. 9 was not subjected to any cross examination whatsoever on this aspect. The MLC Ex. Public Witness. 9/c recorded by Dr. A. K. Singh states that it is a case of alleged history of homocidal burning. These documents came into existence soon after the incident. We are unable to accept the contention that the dying declaration deserves to be discarded. ( 5 ) THE conviction, in law, can be based only on the dying declaration, depending, of course, on facts of each case, but in the present case there is also sufficient corroborative evidence. It stands proved on record that the relations between husband and wife were strained before the incident so much so that with the intervention of Panchayat document Ex. Public Witness. 7/a was executed evidencing the settlement brought about by the Panchayat and the accused had given assurance that he will not give beatings to his wife and children. Further, Public Witness. 4 Mahesh though a minor aged about 12 years on the date of the incident was an eye witness to the incident and he testified having seen the father pouring kerosene oil on Ram Devi and setting her on fire. We have gone through the testimony of Public Witness. 4 and are unable to accept the contention that the witness had been tutored to make the statement. Mahesh was subjected to lengthy and searching cross examination but nothing substantial could be brought out to shake his creditibilily. There is also the testimony of the father and brother of deceased on the question of harassment and beating to which Ram Devi was being subjected and her being forced to indulge in unchaste living by accused to which she was objecting. Both these witnesses also stated that Ram Devi told them in the hospital that kerosene oil had been poured on her by the appellant and he had set her on fire. Their testimony is convincing and natural. The contention that the neighbours were not examined is also without any force as they had not seen the incident of burning and had collected only after Ram Devi came out of room and was crying. Their testimony is convincing and natural. The contention that the neighbours were not examined is also without any force as they had not seen the incident of burning and had collected only after Ram Devi came out of room and was crying. Under these circumstances the non production of the neighbours is of no consequence. Further, the appellant admits in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that he was at the house at the time of the burning incident but gave the explanation that he was asked to stay at home to look after the children and he did not accompany Ram Devi to the hospital. He does not state having taken any steps to extinguish the fire though he has stated that he was asked to stay at home to look after the children but it is in evidence that he went to the Police Station at about 8. 10 p. m. (Ex. Public Witness-20/a) and made the statement that at 7. 30 p. m. while he was sitting in front of his house his wife came out of the house while burning. The conduct of the appellant is yet another additional factor which can be taken into consideration ( 6 ) WE do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.