Judgment : N. Arumugham, J. The two appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 who were convicted for the offence under Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division at Coimbatore, in Sessions Case No.71 of 1985, dated 112. 1987 and thereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for their life have preferred this appeal, challenging the impugned judgment for want of its correctness and legality. 2. It was stated by the counsel for the appellants with the consensus of the learned Public Prosecutor that on the date of delivery of the impugned judgment, the 2nd accused by name Balakrishnan died, and that therefore the conviction and sentences with its relevant finding recorded by the trial judge against him for the charge under Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code still remains but however, in view of his death, the said conviction and sentences abates. 3. Among the three accused A-2 and A-3 are husband and wife and A-1 is their son. The are living in Saravanan Pillai Street in Udumalaipet town. The 1st accused has got more brothers, who are P.W.1 and another. D.W.1 Mohanasundaran was living in the same house, where the three accused and the deceased Manomani were living. They were having wet-grinders in their house and operated the same, grinding grains for hire. The house of P. W. 1 was situate at about 50 feet away from the house of the accused P.W. 2’s house was situate at south of the accused’s house. In the same street the house of P.W.3 was also situate. P.W.4 Raveendran is the brother of the deceased Manomani. He belongs to Kottur near Anaimalais in Pollachi taluk. The deceased Manomani was given in marriage to the 1st accused about one year prior to the occurrence and they were living in the house above referred to belonging to A-1 to A-3. It was the consistent case of the prosecution that from the date of their marriage, there were frequent quarrels between the deceased Manomani and the 1st accused and consequently, A-1 used to beat her and A-2 and A-3 for their part used to abuse her and ill-treat her. It was the consistent case of the prosecution that from the date of their marriage, there were frequent quarrels between the deceased Manomani and the 1st accused and consequently, A-1 used to beat her and A-2 and A-3 for their part used to abuse her and ill-treat her. It was stated that the accused maintained Manomani in a good manner for a period of 3 to 4 months, immediately after the marriage, but, however, all the accused began to ill-treat her with cruelty and beat her afterwards when the deceased Manomani had been to her parents’ house with A-1, it was stated that she had reported to her brother P.W.4 that A-1 used to beat her very often and A-2 and A-3 gave her more work and treated her cruelly. The deceased Manomani and the 1st accused stayed there for 3 months. Then P.W. 4 and his mother took the deceased Manomani and A-1 to their house at Udumalaipet and left them, requesting A-2 and 3, not to ill-treat her. The deceased Manomani informed P.W.4 that A-2 and A-3 insisted her to clean the vessels, after their use and wash all clothes and A-1 to A-3 ill-treated her cruelty and beat her and so saying, she wept, she was however pacified by her brother P.W. 4 that all these things are quite common in a family and that therefore, it is, she, who should adjust all the things. 4. On 212. 1984 all the accused were said to have been quarrelling with the deceased Manomani from the morning onwards and Manomani notwithstanding the severity of the same, started to go to her house with a box in her hand. All the three accused snatched the said box and insisted her to go inside the house. At about 7.00 p.m. on that day, on hearing a hue and cry from the house of A-1 to A-3, P.W.1, one of the neighbours, went to the house of the accused and he found that there was a crowd in front of the house. P.W.2 also came and saw the accused 1 to 3 infront of the house. P.W. 1 noticed smoke emanating through the window of the said house. D.W.1 Mohansundram, the brother of the 1st accused with the help of M.O.1 hit the door leading to the eastern side of the room. P.W.2 also came and saw the accused 1 to 3 infront of the house. P.W. 1 noticed smoke emanating through the window of the said house. D.W.1 Mohansundram, the brother of the 1st accused with the help of M.O.1 hit the door leading to the eastern side of the room. When they opened the door by force, by hitting with M.O.1 and entered into the room, they saw the deceased, burning by fire. P.W.1 covered her with a gunny bag and poured water and put down the fire. On hearing the noise, P.W.2 and 3 entered into the house of the accused and saw the deceased graning with pains due to bums. Then an auto-rickshaw was brought by D.W.1 and Manomani was taken to the Government Hospital, Udumalaipet, accompanied by A-3 and another. 5. P.W.5 Dr.Prakash examined Manomani at about 7.30 p.m. on 212. 1984 and found that she had 90% of burns on her face, two hands, front side of the chest and also backside of the chest, front side of both the legs and admitted her in the Intensive Care Unit of the hospital. Ex.P-3 is the accident Register for the deceased. P.W.5 Doctor gave an intimation Ex.P-4 to Udumalaipet police station and he also sent an intimation to the Magistrate, requesting him to come and record the dying declaration of the injured Manomani, as her condition was very precarious. Accordingly, the 2nd Class Judicial Magistrate of Udumalaipet. Mr.Ramachandran came to the hospital and saw Manomani in a precarious condition. In the meanwhile, since her condition was very precarious, the doctor himself recorded the dying declaration of Manomani to her narration and read over to her and he obtained her thumb impression. Ex.P-6 is that dying declaration. 6. P.W.1 3, Mr.Mothilal, the Sub Inspector of police, on receipt of the intimation Ex.P-4 from the hospital, reached the hospital at about 7.40 p.m. on that day, after entering in the General Diary about this case. He recorded the voluntary statement of the injured Manomani at about 7.55 p.m. in the presence of P.W.5 and read over to her, got it admitted by her and this statement was marked as Ex.P-18. Doctor P.W.5 certified that Manomani was conscious and was able to understand while giving the statement. 7. P.W.6 Thiru Ramachandran, the IInd Class Judicial Magistrate on receipt of the intimation, reached the hospital by 8.45 p.m. on 212. Doctor P.W.5 certified that Manomani was conscious and was able to understand while giving the statement. 7. P.W.6 Thiru Ramachandran, the IInd Class Judicial Magistrate on receipt of the intimation, reached the hospital by 8.45 p.m. on 212. 84 and recorded the statement of Manomani, which has been market as Ex.P-10. P.W.5 has certified that she was conscious and was able to give the statement Ex.P-10. Ex.P-8 is the certificate given by the doctor. P.W.13 returned to the police station and registered a case under Sec.307 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.509 of 1984 of his police station and prepared printed First Information Report Ex.P-19 and sent Exs.P-18 and 19 to the 2nd Class Magistrate, Udumalaipet and the copies of Ex.P-19 to the higher officials concerned through constable 423. 8. P.W. 14 Mr.Murugan, the Inspector of Police Udumalaipet, on receipt of Ex.P-19 about 9.30 p.m. on 212. 1984 took up the case for investigation. He went to the Government Hospital, Udumalaipet examined Manomani and recorded her statement and also examined all the three accused who were present in the hospital. At about 11.00 p.m. on that day since Manomani expired in the hospital, P.W.10, the head-constable of Udumalaipet police station received the death intimation Ex.P-9 and on the basis of which altered the section of the case into Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code and prepared Ex.P-17 and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate’s Court and the copies of the same to the higher officials through express tapals. 9. P.W.14 at about 12.15 a.m. on 212. 84, on receipt, of Ex.P-17 went to the scene of occurrence and at about 1.00 p.m. he prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P-1 in the presence of P.W.2 and one Jayabalan and a rough sketch Ex.P-20 showing the topography of the scene of occurrence. On 212. 1984 from 4.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. he conducted inquest over the dead body of Manomani in the presence of witness and panchayatdars and prepared Inquest Report Ex.P-21. During inquest he examined P.W. 1 and P.W.4 and others then he gave a requisition Ex.P-11 through Constable Rajan P.W.8 to hand over the dead body of Manomani for conducting post-mortem examination. 1984 from 4.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. he conducted inquest over the dead body of Manomani in the presence of witness and panchayatdars and prepared Inquest Report Ex.P-21. During inquest he examined P.W. 1 and P.W.4 and others then he gave a requisition Ex.P-11 through Constable Rajan P.W.8 to hand over the dead body of Manomani for conducting post-mortem examination. On the night of the same day by about 12.30 he went to the scene of crime alongwith P.W.11 and P.W.12 and caused the scene of crime to be photographed by P.W.11 Pankajkumar photographs are M.Os.13 to 16 and negatives are M.Os.17 to 20. 10. P.W.7 Dr.Nagarathinam on receipt of Ex.P-11 at 11.35 a.m. on 212. 84 through P.W.8, commenced autopsy over the dead body of Manomani at about 12.30 noon and found the following conditions and injuries over her body: Condition: Rigour Mortis present in all four limbs. Appearances: Body of a female lying on its back with pugilistic attitude, colour of skin cark burnt, colour of iris black, scalp hair 6 inches charred in some areas. Burns all over the body except perineum. Injuries: Second degree burns seen all over the body with blisters throughout the body.Peeling of the skin in some areas, Perineum is spared. Singeing of hair in the axila present. Eye lashes charred, Eye lids closed. Auxiliary hair singeing. Public hair normal.Internal Examination: No fracture of ribs, Heart chamber empty blood dark cherry red in colour. Lungs congested. Hyoid bone intact. Stomach contained brown colour fluid 200ml. Laryux, trachea, Bronchia - Normal. Intestines empty. Intestines empty. Long intestine filled with gas and liquid. Uterus- Normal in size. Cavity empty, congested. Head - No fracture: Membranes - congested. Brain - Congested: Spinal Column - No Fracture. He gave a certificate Ex.P-12. According to his opinion, the deceased would appear to have died 12 to 14 hours prior to the autopsy due to the burns caused to her to the extent of 99% and due to hypo voluneric shock. 11. After the autopsy was over, P.W.8 recovered M.O.11 burnt jacket, M.O.12 petty-coat from the dead body of the deceased Manomani and handed over the same to Police Station under Form 95 which was recovered under Mahazar Ex.P-13. At about 12.45 Noon P.W.14 recovered M.Os.1 to 10 under cover of Mahazar Ex.P-2 attested by the witnesses. 11. After the autopsy was over, P.W.8 recovered M.O.11 burnt jacket, M.O.12 petty-coat from the dead body of the deceased Manomani and handed over the same to Police Station under Form 95 which was recovered under Mahazar Ex.P-13. At about 12.45 Noon P.W.14 recovered M.Os.1 to 10 under cover of Mahazar Ex.P-2 attested by the witnesses. He arrested the accused 1 to 3 at about 11.45 and sent them to judicial custody by 3.00 p.m. and after examining the witnesses, he gave requisition Ex.P-14 to the court to subject M.Os.7 to 11 for chemical examination. Then M.Os.7 to 11 were all packed and sent to chemical examiner with a covering letter from the Judicial Magistrate under the original of Ex.P-15 and the report of the chemical Examiner was received under Ex.P-16. After, thus having completed the investigation, P. W. 14 laid the final report against the accused 1 to 3 for the offences under Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code before the court of law. 12. All the three accused have denied their complicity and guilt when questioned under Sec.313(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the above incriminating materials and evidence made available. 13. However, they (A-1 to 3) examined one Mohansundram as D.W.1 who is the brother of A-1, whose evidence, on perusal, substantiate the claim, the whole claim made by P.W.1 through his chief-examination and cross-examination. In short, he would claim that on hearing the noise from the house of the accused, when he reached there, he saw some people in front of the house, including the accused and P. W. 1 was hitting the door in which the deceased was burning, with full force, but, at that time, the door did not give any way. He claimed that he took M.O.1 and hit with more force and by doing so, the door gave way and opened. All entered into the room and saw that Manomani was half burnt. Thus, there was every similarity between the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 The defence of the accused 1 to 3 is one of total denial of the entire allegations. All entered into the room and saw that Manomani was half burnt. Thus, there was every similarity between the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 The defence of the accused 1 to 3 is one of total denial of the entire allegations. After having recorded the oral evidence of P.W.1 to 14 on behalf of the prosecution and D.W.1 for and on behalf of all the accused and with documents Exs.P-1 to 21 on behalf of the prosecution and Exs.D-1 to D-3 on behalf of defences and with marking of material objects 1 to 17 and the rival contentions made on behalf of the respective parties and after having an elaborate discussion, from paras. 20 to 35 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge has found all the accused guilty under Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted and sentenced them. It is this judgment now being challenged and canvassed for want of its correctness and validity. 14. We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel on behalf of the appellants, challenging this impugned judgment and the contra, justifying the impugned judgment by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Anbazhagan. 15. In the context of the above rival contentions the only questions that arises for our consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of all the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, and if so, whether the impunged judgment rendered by the trial Judge is correct or not? .16. The fact that the deceased Manomani was given in marriage to A-1, one year prior to the occurrence, and that the deceased Manomani and A-1 were living happily for a few months in the house of the accused and that the deceased Manomani, all the accused and D.W.1 were living in the same house at Saravanapillai Street at Udumalaipet and that P.Ws.1 to 3 were the neighbours of the accused and that the deceased Manomani, the wife of A-1 belongs to Kottur in Pollachi taluk and that she was as fair looking girl are all the admitted facts. It was claimed by P.Ws.2 and 3 that A1 quarrelled with the deceased very often and that on that score, he used to beat her and the accused 2 and 3 used to join A-1 and ill-treat her with abuses cruelly and to this extent the testimony of P.W.3 would clearly render support to the claim made by the prosecution that all the accused used to beat the deceased and ill-treat her cruelly and on 212. 84 from the morning the deceased was subjected to physical cruelty followed by filthy language and notwithstanding all these at about 7.30 p.m. When Manomani started to go to her parents’ house, she was prevented by all the accused by snatching her box and was insisted her to go inside the house. It was at that time, P.W.1 heard the noise from the house of the accused and he went there immediately and saw a crowd in front of the accused’s house where the accused were also standing and smoke was found emanating from the window door leading to the eastern side room of the house, in which door was locked according to him. Therefore, he took M.O.1 and hit door several times forcibly. It was at this time, D.W. 1 claimed that he came there and took M.O.1 in his hand for his part and gave a hit with more force, with the result the door opened and it enabled all of them to enter into the room where the deceased was burning. She was covered with a gunny bag. P.W.2 also claimed to the same extent but he did not claim that he had contributed to break-open the door or padlock. Immediately, according to the prosecution, the deceased was brought to the Government Hospital Udumalaipet, in an auto-rickshaw brought by D.W.1, accompanied by A-3 and another lady. P.W.5 the doctor attached to the Government Hospital treated her by admitting her in the Intensive Care Unit of the hospital and since she was in a precarious condition he sent intimation to the Judicial Magistrate to come and record the dying declaration of Manomani. In the meantime, he himself, thought it fit to record the dying declaration of Manomani, as she was conscious and able to speak and understand the question, at that time. Accordingly, he recorded the dying declaration which was marked under Ex.P-6. In the meantime, he himself, thought it fit to record the dying declaration of Manomani, as she was conscious and able to speak and understand the question, at that time. Accordingly, he recorded the dying declaration which was marked under Ex.P-6. Subsequently, the Sub Inspector of Police, on getting the intimation from the hospital about Manonmani’s admission in a very precarious condition, came there and examined her in the presence of the Doctor P.W.5 and recorded the statement at about 7.55 p.m. on that day and within a few minutes, the II class Judicial Magistrate of Udumalaipet also came there and found the identify of Manomani and he introduced himself to Manomani and recorded the statement given by her voluntarily in the presence of the doctor and read it over to her and obtained her thumb impression. The statements recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police and the Judicial Magistrate are Exs.P-18 and 10 respectively. .17. Subsequently, it appears that Manomani passed away due to the burns to the extent of 90% in the hospital and a death intimation to this effect was sent to the Police Station and consequently the section of the case was altered by the investigating agency and the express report was sent to the court and to P. W. 14. P.W.4 went to the hospital and recorded the statements of the accused and after conducting inquest over the dead body of Manomani, he arranged for post mortem examination over the dead body through P.W.8, the constable attached to the police station. On the next day, Post mortem was conducted over the dead body by Doctor P.W.5 and from the post mortem certificate, it was evident that the burns were found all over her body to the extent of 90% and the doctor has opined that the deceased might have succumbed to injuries due to hypo voluneric shock. From the above evidence, it is seen that the deceased appeared to have died due to the burns, found all over her body and the said burns were caused while she was burnt away in the eastern side room of the house. 18. The case of the accused is that they did not know how Manomani was set fire and sustained burnt injuries, which resulted in her death. 18. The case of the accused is that they did not know how Manomani was set fire and sustained burnt injuries, which resulted in her death. But they claimed the only door leading to the entry into the said room was found locked from inside while she was burning and on hearing the alarm raised by Manomani, through the window they thought it fit of raising a hue and cry which brought their neighbours there and they gave forcible hit on the locked door, which was bolted from inside and after having broke-open the same, they entered into the room and saw that Manomani was burning. The fire was put-down by covering with a gunny bag and she was immediately rushed to the hospital in an autorickshaw, accompanied by A-3 and another, where she was admitted and treated. However, she collapsed. Therefore all the three accused pleaded innocence and feigned any knowledge about the way in which the deceased Manomani was set fire. 19. The learned senior counsel for the appellants Mr.Gopinath took us through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cumulatively and urged and persuaded us to believe that the bolt fixed inside the door was locked from inside and the deceased Manomani set fire on herself in order to commit suicide, for which the accused cannot be held responsible in any way. In support of his claim he has placed reliance upon the evidence of D.W. 1 and P. W.1. P.W.1 is the neighbour of A-1 to 3 whose house was situate 50 feet away from the house of the accused P.W.3 house is situate immediately south of the house of the accused. His version is to the effect that after hearing the noise, he came to the house of the accused and saw everybody in the room and found the deceased Manomani with burns and therefore, she was taken to the Government Hospital by A-3. Ofcourse, P.W.1 and D.W.1 have expressed about the incident unanimously, claiming that the door leading to the eastern side room in which the fire incident took place, was bolted from inside and that therefore, one could not enter into the room and he claimed that to get the door open, he had to take M.O.1 and hit the door with force. But the door didn’t open and when the same method was adopted by D.W.1 on his arrival, it was claimed that the door gave way and opened. On entering into the room they found the deceased with burn injuries. To believe the version of P.W.1 and D.W.1, the only circumstantial evidence to speak about the pivotal aspect of the case, we have to see the observation Mahazar as well as the rough sketch Exs.P-1 and 20 prepared by the Investigating Officer, Immediately on getting the law in motion, without any delay. On perusal of the photographs, caused to be taken through P.W.11 at the request of Investigation officer P.W.14 especially the photo M.O.15, showing exactly, the back portion of the door and the fixing of the bolt with handle slightly twisted on the vertical position at the right extreme side can be seen without any doubt. But this bolt stops with the edge of the door and seems to have not extended even to extent of 1 c.m. towards the wall or inside the wall. The connected bolt viz., half couplings to be fixed in the wall, matching the iron rod of the bolt is missing in this case. On a careful look of M.O.1 5 we are not able to see fixing of any blot or the connected half coupling of the blot upon the wall in question. So also there was no hole in the corresponding portion of the wall so as to operate the bolt, remaining inside the room. The Investigating Officer had not at all described any dent or any hole which can be used as a bolt in the wall. On the other hand, Ex.P-1 observation Mahazar shows that a rod alone was extending. The investigation on this aspect, when goes to the core of the whole problem is silent about it. Therefore, the plea of the accused that the door was bolted from inside which under the circumstances, creates a doubt to us and accordingly on a careful and meticulous perusal of the observation Mahazar Ex.P-1, Rough sketch Ex.P-20, the photograph M.O.15 we are fully satisfied to hold that there was no symptoms of the bolt fixed in the door and that it had been locked from inside the room on the relevant day. In view of the above circumstances established. In view of the above circumstances established. We totally doubt the veracity, truth and genuineness of the evidence of witnesses P.W.1 and D.W.1, who is none other, than the brother of A-1 and the son of A-2 and A-3. Of really P.W.1 and D. W. 1 hit the door leading to occurrence room several times with M.O.1, then there would have appeared some signs or symptoms on the wooden door which the Investigating officer has totally failed to note and if several hits were given by P.W.1 and D.W.1 with M.O.1 and if the door had given way after several hits with M.O.1, then it is common knowledge to anyone to accept that the broken bolt or the part of which or the part of the dent came out from the wall could have been available and the Investigating Officer could have noted in the observation mahazar and rough sketch. Nothing was made available and the failure of the Investigating agency to note down the above, in our respectful view, provides every room to reject the plea of the defence to take a clear escape from the clutches of law. It is in this respect we find fault with the Investigating officer, that he, by not noting down the above aspect, has shirked of his legal responsibility, and duty in order to help the accused to form a false defence which has to be highly depreciated. Enough for us to stop with this in connection with the Investigating agency and it is for the higher officials to take necessary action against the erring Police Officer. For the above circumstances clearly made available from the materials placed before the court of law. We are totally inclined to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1. 20. The version of P. W.2 did not support the case of the accused on the other hand, only clinches the circumstance that Manomani was burning inside the room, while the accused 1 to 3 were available there. It is under these circumstances, the prosecution was able to show that the deceased Manomani sustained burn injuries to the extent of 99% in the house which belonged to and which was under actual custody of the accused, who were very much available during the time of occurrence. It is under these circumstances, the prosecution was able to show that the deceased Manomani sustained burn injuries to the extent of 99% in the house which belonged to and which was under actual custody of the accused, who were very much available during the time of occurrence. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution was able to show that the fire incident took-place inside a room of the house, in the presence of A-1 to A-3 in the same house, and that the deceased succumbed to the burnt injuries and the theory of the door bolted from inside is a cooked-up one and cannot at all be believed. It is significant to note that P. W.2 is also a neighbour of the accused. His consistent claim was, from the very beginning that the deceased Manomani was being ill treated with cruelty and as a result of which, there used to be quarrel between the accused and the deceased. He spoke to the res gestae narration on the date of occurrence. After having given our anxious perusal and on analysis, we find the evidence of P.Ws.2.and 3 to be very natural, cogent and convincing and above all trust-worthy. In substantiation and in support of the said version, P.W.4 the brother of the deceased has subscribed his testimony to the effect that the deceased was subjected to cruely for months together, prior to the occurrence and that therefore, it is made clear that the accused 1 to 3 are also guilty for the offence under Sec.498-A of Indian Penal Code and 302 of Indian Penal Code. Unfortunately in the instant appeal, it is seen that the State has not preferred any appeal, nor even the court below has framed charges for the offence under Sec.498(A) of Indian Penal Code against the accused. The final report laid down by the Investigating Officer is also silent about the fact that there was any charge for the offence under Sec.498(A) of Indian Penal Code. From the bottom to top, in this case, every responsible persons, who are accountable for conducting prosecution has deliberately failed to take any steps to frame charge under Sec.498(A) of Indian Penal Code against the accused, inspite of the abundant evidence made available. In this respect, for the above reasons, our hands are tied in this appeal, preferred by the accused, against the conviction judgment. In this respect, for the above reasons, our hands are tied in this appeal, preferred by the accused, against the conviction judgment. But it is pertinent for us to point out that, not only the Investigation Officer, But also the State, who is vested with powers to prosecute and the culprits who have committed the offences have had an escape and that too, a dare escape from the clutches of law. It is under these circumstances we have to point out that with this kinds of inactions on the part of the executives of the police wing, there would be no question of rendering justice by any court of law, with the above remarks, it is enough for us to stop here. 21. The other important feature that proves the guilt or the accused 1 to 3 in this case are the three dying declarations given by the deceased. The first dying declaration was recorded by the doctor P.W.5, who treated the injured Manomani. It is the Prosecution case that immediately after the occurrence, Manomani was taken in an auto-rickshaw to the Government Hospital, Udumalaipet, accompanied by A-3, the mother-in-law of the deceased. On seeing the precarious condition of the injured, while giving treatment the doctor P.W.5 sent an intimation to the Judicial Magistrate, Udumalaipet to come and record the dying declaration of the injured Manomani. In the meantime, in view of the urgency, P.W.5 himself thought fit to record the statement of the injured and he himself recorded her statement which is marked under Ex.P-6. He has certified in the said document that the patient was fully conscious while giving statement and that the statement was read over and explained to her in Tamil. In the meantime, in view of the urgency, P.W.5 himself thought fit to record the statement of the injured and he himself recorded her statement which is marked under Ex.P-6. He has certified in the said document that the patient was fully conscious while giving statement and that the statement was read over and explained to her in Tamil. In the statement the deceased had, even at the verge of her death has stated that for the last six days prior to the date of occurrence, all the accused ill-treated her and abused her with filthy language and wanted her to go away, and that on the day of occurrence, from the morning onwards, she was ill-treated and beaten, by her husband A-1 and she was even beaten with chappals also and that when she tried to go to her native place, she was prevented by her husband and according to the statement all the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire on her and that she raised hue and cry and that she doesn’t know who took her to the hospital and admitted her. .22. Ex.P-18 is the statement recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.13 in the presence of the Doctor P.W.5 would also go to show the same facts, in which the injured Manomani had implicated all the three accused of their respective overtacts and their prior ill-treatment. The 3rd statement was recorded by P.W.6 Judicial Magistrate of 2nd Class, Udumalaipet on getting intimation from the Doctor P.W.5, the Judicial Magistrate went to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of voluntarily given by Manomani, which also implicates all the three accused with their respective overtacts in setting fire on her. Ex.P-10 is the said statement. All the three statements succeed each other quickly. There was no evidence to show that she was tutored by anyone. It is under these circumstances, after having verified the three dying declarations, we are fully satisfied to hold that they are true, genuine and voluntarily given by the deceased without any instigation or tutored or any ill-will or malice. We therefore, think that the said three dying declarations are genuine documents and could be relied on. It is under these circumstances, after having verified the three dying declarations, we are fully satisfied to hold that they are true, genuine and voluntarily given by the deceased without any instigation or tutored or any ill-will or malice. We therefore, think that the said three dying declarations are genuine documents and could be relied on. If the dying declaration given by a person, when he or she was actually on the verge of death, that too in the last moment, is believed by the court of law, then, under no stretch of imagination, a further corroboration to substantiate the contents of the dying declaration is required by the court of law and that further accepting that sort of job is quite abnoxious and cannot at all expected to be done. Therefore, we believe and decide to go by the substratum and gist of the contents recorded by the three officers, viz., the doctor P.W.5, the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.11l, and the Judicial Magistrate, P.W.6 from a dying person and accordingly, we accept the same. 23. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Ram, (1997)1 Crimes 62 has observed the following with regard to the legal credibility or dying declaration on, if found true and genuine: “It is aximatic that what matters is the substance and not the form. Questions put to the dying man would have been formal and hence the answers given are material. Criminal courts may evince interest in knowing the contents of what the dying person said and the questions put to him are not very important normally. That part of the statement which relates to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death puts the sanction of admissibility. Here it is improper to throw such statement over-board on a predinatic premise that it was not recorded in the form of questions and answers.” .24. In the light of above ratio held by the Lordship of the Supreme Court, if we peruse the recording of the dying declarations in the narration form casts no doubt at any point of time. We are, therefore, inclined to attach every importance and that therefore we believe the dying declarations that implicates all the accused. The corroboration of the same is in the evidence of P.W.7, the Doctor who did the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. We are, therefore, inclined to attach every importance and that therefore we believe the dying declarations that implicates all the accused. The corroboration of the same is in the evidence of P.W.7, the Doctor who did the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The doctor’s opinion seems to be convincing and correlated and renders all support to the claim of burns burns caused to the extent of 99% and that, after setting fire on pouring kerosene and the half burnt materials and the evidence of the prosecution that they had a smell of kerosene at the time of recovery of the ten all these go to show that the guilt of the accused is clearly established in this case. Having gone through and identified the said aspects, the various observations and findings of the learned trial judge, we do not find any reason, either on facts or law, to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Accordingly we find the appeal is non-meritorious. 25. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge Coimbatore in his impunged judgment in Sessions Case No.71 of 1985, dated 16.12,1987 against the appellants, are hereby confirmed and maintained. The bail-bonds executed by the appellants, if any, are hereby ordered to be cancelled forthwith.