D. M. PATNAIK J. ( 1 ) THE appellant, a lady from jail, assails her conviction under Section 302, of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprison ment for life. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is, on 7-10-1989 sometime in the midnight. Ganduri (herein after referred as 'the deceased) the second wife of Bandhanu was sleep ing in the house. The appellant put kerosene on her body and set fire with the help of one bibiri as a result of which 75% of the body was burnt. On a report having been lodged. The case was registered and she was examined by the Doctor at the Hatibari Public Health Center where her dying declaration was recorded and subsequently. The injuries being serious in nature, she was REFERRED TO the Rourkala General Hospital where she was treated as an indoor patient but ultimately died about 35 days thereafter on developing titanous. The appellant denied her indictment. ( 3 ) MR. A. C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence against the appellant it was an error on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in recording the conviction only on the basis of the dying declaration recorded by the Doctor which itself suffered from various infirmities. Mr. G. K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand, supported the judgment of conviction. ( 4 ) P. W. 13 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of Gandhuri, the deceased. In cross-examination he stated that no definite opinion could be given as to whether death could be caused in case of these injuries on the body of a normal person. Needless to say, the lady died on 12-11-1989, that is, 35 days after the occurrence. P. W. 14 is the Doctor admitted the deceased in the Rourkela General Hospital on 8-10-1989 after she was referred from the Matibari Public Health Center. In the cross-examination, the Doctor stated that, had the infection not set in, there was good chance of the patient's recovering. With these opinions of the two Doctors, it is difficult to hold that the injuries, if at all caused by the appellants, could be said to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the cross-examination, the Doctor stated that, had the infection not set in, there was good chance of the patient's recovering. With these opinions of the two Doctors, it is difficult to hold that the injuries, if at all caused by the appellants, could be said to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is also no opinion of any of the Doctors as to whether the injuries were, in fact, likely to cause death. In the absence of any positive opinion. We entertain a doubt as to the homicidal nature of death of the deceased. ( 5 ) P. W. 6 is the witness who reached the spot first on the night of occurrence. He stated that his mother was ailing and so he was aware. He heard the shouting of Gandhuri for help. He rushed to her house and found her on fire which he extinguished. He found burn injuries all over her body. Thereafter Gandhuri went towards her house and he left for his house and slept. In the morning he informed the Gram Rakhi. He did not speak of any declaration given by Gandhuri implicating the appellant. He resiled from his earlier statement before the police that on his asking Gandhuri gave out that the appel lant set fire on her body. Thus there is no substantive evidence so far as this witness is concerned with regard to any dying declarations. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 is the informant who stated that, in the morning on 8-10-1989 being informed by P. W. 6 he went to the house of Gandhuri and found her lying on the Verandha with burn injuries on her person. On inquiry she informed that the appellant set fire in the previous night. This witness admitted that before his arrival several others including P. W. 3 were present there, but P. W. 3 is silent about any such declaration by the deceased. Therefore, it is difficult for us to believe the sole evidence of P. W. 1 in the absence of any corroboration from the witnesses, who admittedly according to P. W. 1 were already present before he arrived at the spot. ( 7 ) NOW the only point for consideration is the dying declaration (Ext. 12) recorded by the Doctor, P. W. 15. Mr. ( 7 ) NOW the only point for consideration is the dying declaration (Ext. 12) recorded by the Doctor, P. W. 15. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant, was critical about the manner in which the dying declaration was recorded. It was submitted that as has been laid down in by the apex Court in the case of and Maniram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 840 in the absence of any signature or thumb impression of the deceased giving such statement on the dying decla ration, the same has to be discarded. P. W. 15 was the Medical Officer at Hatibari Public Health Center who received the injured on 8 10-1989 and recorded the dying declaration (Ext. 12) at 2. 30 p. m. on that day. He stated in his evidence that the deceased gave her statement in Sadri lan guage and he noted her statement in vervatim in Oriya script. He further stated that because of the extensive burns on her palm and fingers he could not take her L. T. I. or the R. T. I. on the statement. She gave out the statement which was to the effect that, while the deceased was sleeping in the night in her house, she felt something like water being poured on her body and when she got up, there was smelling of kerosene and found the appellant standing nearby who set fire on her hair first with a burning Dibiri and that her entire body was burnt and she shouted for help. On going through Ext. 12 we found the above statement to have been recorded by the Doctor, P. W. 15. The submission of Mr. Mohanty that in the absence of signature of L. R. I. of the deceased on Ext. 12, the dying declaration should be discarded does not find favour with us since in one of the decisions in the case of State of U. P. (supra) there was no explanation whatsoever as to the absence of the L. T. I. of the deceased and, in the other, in the cage of Maniram (supra) the explanation was of fered that it was not thought necessary to take the signature of the deceased on the dying declaration. In the present case the Doctor has categorically given an explanation that because of the extensive burn injuries he could not take L. T. I. or R. T. I. of the deceased. There is nothing to discard such explana tion as either false or incorrect. However, we agree with the contention of Mr. Mohanty that conviction should not have been based only on the basis of Ext. 12, reason being as follows : -the I. O. (P. W. 12) stated in his examination in chief that when he visited the spot, Gandhuri was lying on the verandah of the house with severe burn injuries all over her body. The case diary shows that he recorded her statement. That statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. obviously gives out the cause of her death. Surprisingly, prosecution did not prove that statement although there was no bar for proving such statement being admissible under Section 32, of the Evidence Act. Prohibition of admis sibility of such a statement is excepted as provided under Section 162, Cr. P. C. (also see the decision reported in AIR 1970 SC 1566 Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab ). It is not known as to why the prosecution did not prove this statement although it is in the record. This might be either because of ignorance of the provi sion which were are slow to accept or it may be to avoid the inconsistent case of the prosecution being spoken to by the deceased that the appellant set fire to her body by a matchstick whereas, Ext. 12 indi cates that the appellant set fire with the help of a burning Dibiri. In any view of the matter, non -proving of the earlier written dying declaration prior to the dying declaration under Ext. 12 casts a grave doubt as to the correct nature of the dying declara tion. ( 8 ) THE I. O. stated that he accompanied the injured to the hospital and gave a requisition to the Doctor to record the dying declaration. The Doctor explains that because of the extensive burn injuries on the body including the two hands, he could not take either the L. T. I. or the R. T. I. of the deceased. The Doctor explains that because of the extensive burn injuries on the body including the two hands, he could not take either the L. T. I. or the R. T. I. of the deceased. But there was nothing which prevented the Doctor to get this statement attested either by the I. O. who was present, or by any of the medical staff or in the worst case by the relations of the deceased. This is admit tedly an infirmity in the dying declaration as cor rectly submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant. ( 9 ) LAW on the question of dying declaration is well settled that a dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration if the same is true and correct version of a dying man and is not stated to have been made under any doubtful circumstances. It is like any other prosecution evidence and subject to scrutiny. Corroboration is not sought for because it is a weak piece of evidence, but corroboration is sought for because it suffers from certain infirmity. As discussed above, we find certain infirmity in the dying declaration under Ext. 12. Therefore, corroboration is necessary in such case. But there is surprisingly no corroborative evidence in support of Ext. 12. Firstly, none has stated that the deceased and the appellant were sleeping in the night together. The statement of the deceased before the police was that a matchstick was used whereas, Ext. 12 shows that a Dibiri was used Secondly P. W. 6 stated that after he extinguished the fire, the deceased walked to her house. It is not known as to how, when almost 75% of the body was affected, the lady was able to walk. Thirdly Doctors as already discussed above did not opine whether the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. P. W. 13, the Doctor admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries could have been also possible in case of self immolation. Fourthly, the deceased had given such a statement in presence of many other wit nesses but, none of them supported the prosecution case. The deceased survived for 35 days but during this period she did not give any further statement confirming Ext. 12. Fourthly, the deceased had given such a statement in presence of many other wit nesses but, none of them supported the prosecution case. The deceased survived for 35 days but during this period she did not give any further statement confirming Ext. 12. In such doubtful circumstances, particularly in view of the evidence of the husband of the deceased (P. W. 1) that both the wives were not pulling on wall, it would not be proper to sustain the conviction only on the basis of Ext. 12 which evidence we do not find to be clinching. ( 10 ) IN the result, the jail criminal appeal succeeds and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302, I. P. C. he be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed.