JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in sessions case No. 180/93 on 31st March, 1995 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for causing murder of his wife Rekha. 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal stated briefly are that, deceased Rekha wife of accused Dinesh was knitting sweater in her house at Rawat Bhata where she was residing in the Heavy Water Colony Block No. 20/115 and was visited by her in-laws also at the relevant time. It is alleged by the prosecution that on that day, she was abused by her in-laws and her husband Dinesh and then Dinesh poured kerosene over her and put her to fire, as a result of which burning she died. First Information Report was lodged from the hospital and on the basis of that, the sessions trial was started after completion of the investigations by Police of Rawat Bhata. 3. Eighteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case who proved during their deposition several exhibits/documents. On appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused in the matter of murdering his wife Rekha is proved beyond reasonable doubt and he therefore, proceeded to convict the accused and sentenced him as aforesaid The order of conviction is assailed in this appeal on several grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal which we will consider one by one after re-appreciating the evidence on record. As re-appreciation and re-marshaling of facts is necessary while exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code, one opportunity of attacking the evidence on record is always given to the accused. Accordingly, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, we have re-appreciated the evidence on record for assessing correctness of the impugned order in light of the reassessed oral evidence. 4. PW. 1 Surendra Nath is a neighbour of accused Dinesh. At about 10 in the morning, he heard noise from the quarter of Dinesh and he therefore, went there. When he reached there, he saw wife of Dinesh lying unconscious, kerosene smell was in the air. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. 4. PW. 1 Surendra Nath is a neighbour of accused Dinesh. At about 10 in the morning, he heard noise from the quarter of Dinesh and he therefore, went there. When he reached there, he saw wife of Dinesh lying unconscious, kerosene smell was in the air. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. All that is proved by this witness is the fact that the wife of the accused was burnt and was taken to hospital. 5. PW. 2 Ramdulari is the mother of the deceased Rekha who has given several illustrations of her family fulfilling the dowry demands of the family of accused. She also speaks of the complaints made by Rekha the deceased to her regarding quarrel in Rekha's family. All that is proved by the witness is therefore, the fact that prior to her death, Rekha was harassed by her in-laws. There is no evidence deposed to by this witness regarding any harassment, immediately preceding the moment of death. The evidence therefore, is of no consequences in the trial of murder. 6. PW. 3 Ghasi Ram is the uncle of deceased Rekha. He has also deposed regarding harassment of Rekha by her in-laws. He thus, corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2 Ram Dulari in regard to harassment. 7. P.W. 4 Ramesh is father of the deceased Rekha, who has also deposed about ante mortem harassment of Rakha by her in-laws, demanding more and more dowry. He corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2 and 3. The evidence of these three witnesses cumulatively proves beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Rekha was harassed and tortured for bringing more dowry by her in-laws prior to her death on 19.1.92. 8. There is no eye-witness to this murder. P.W. 5 Ashok Kumar is cousin of deceased Rekha who also speaks of ante mortem harassment of Rekha for dowry and additional witness to prove the fact of harassment. This witness has also given several examples of torture and harassment following which demands of additional dowry were fulfilled to great extent by the witness or his parents. The evidence of PW. 2 to 5 therefore, proves the harassment and torture of Rekha by her husband and in-laws prior to her death by burning. 9. P.W. 6 is Sampat Lal Ameta Asstt. Security Officer, Heavy Water Scheme, Rawat Bhata where the accused Dinesh was staying. The evidence of PW. 2 to 5 therefore, proves the harassment and torture of Rekha by her husband and in-laws prior to her death by burning. 9. P.W. 6 is Sampat Lal Ameta Asstt. Security Officer, Heavy Water Scheme, Rawat Bhata where the accused Dinesh was staying. He is a witness to seizure of certain clothes on the body of deceased Rekha and proves Exhibits P/7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. This panch witness has given details of the manner in which the seizure was affected as also "Panchnama" of site where death occurred. 10. PW. 7 is the Doctor who was present when the dying declaration was made by Rekha. Dr. Yashpal Nakhra was the attending Doctor when deceased Rekha was admitted to the hospital. He speaks of the treatment given to her on the admission to the hospital and states that as long as in the hospital Rekha was speaking in a low voice. He has stated unequivocally that Rekha was speaking till the arrival of police. In his cross-examination, he has pointed out that it is not necessary that a person who is burnt 95% and is administered, pathedrin must become unconscious. He denies flatly the suggestion that thumb impression of Rekha was taken because she was unconscious when Ex.P/12 was recorded. The evidence of this witness proves that Rekha was conscious when she gave her dying declaration Ex.P/12 stating that she was burnt to death by her husband accused Dinesh. This dying declaration as corroborated by the oral testimony of Doctor Yashpal is heavily relied upon by the Learned Judge for recording the finding of guilt. 11. PW. 8 Leela Shrama is a Social Worker who witnessed the "Panchnama" of the dead body. 12. PW. 9 Rajendra Kishan is unnecessarily examined in this case for which there is no explanation. 13. P.W. 10 Prahalad Singh is the Constable who took 12 sealed packets to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. He proves the connecting papers which are duly exhibited. 14. P.W. 11 Habib is a Photographer who took photographs of the site Ex.P/15-A to 41 and proves it. 15. P.W. 12 Prabhakar Singh is a neighbour of accused Dinesh and was declared hostile by the prosecution, his testimony is, therefore, inconsequential. 16. PW. He proves the connecting papers which are duly exhibited. 14. P.W. 11 Habib is a Photographer who took photographs of the site Ex.P/15-A to 41 and proves it. 15. P.W. 12 Prabhakar Singh is a neighbour of accused Dinesh and was declared hostile by the prosecution, his testimony is, therefore, inconsequential. 16. PW. 13 Madhav Rao is another neighbour of Dinesh who states that on the relevant day, he was standing in the balcony of his house and heard the parents of Dinesh trying to pacify Dinesh and Rekha preaching them not to quarrel and stay peacefully. Thereafter, he saw smoke from the kitchen side and found Dinesh and his father trying to open the door. When the door opened, Dinesh and his father poured water over Rekha who was burning and put blanket on her, then she was taken to hospital in Ambulance. The witness is not an eye-witness to the incident but has seen it immediately after the occurrence and found Rekha burning and the accused and his father trying to put water on her. 17. P.W. 14 Dr. Gulab Chand Bansal is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased. He proves that the deceased died due to burning. 18. PW. 15 Ranveer Singh Solanki is the Malkhana Incharge who received the articles in sealed condition to be carried to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and handed over the same in the sealed condition to the carrier. 19. PW 16 Umakant Bhatt is the Dy.S.P concerned. He deposes the manner in which the investigation was conducted and proves the relevant documents prepared by him or in his presence. 20. P.W. 17 Maheshchandra Sharma is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in whose presence and by at whose dictate, the dying declaration of the deceased Rekha was recorded. He was the then Assistant Collector. He has deposed that he took the confessional statement of the deceased Rekha after ascertaining that she is in a position to state normally what she has to state. He has duly proved the recording of the dying declaration. He was the then Assistant Collector. He has deposed that he took the confessional statement of the deceased Rekha after ascertaining that she is in a position to state normally what she has to state. He has duly proved the recording of the dying declaration. This witness states as under, " mldh gkyr iwNdj fd c;ku nsus dh fLFkfr esa gS ;k ugha] c;ku fy;s FksA js[kk us eq>s ;gh crk;k Fkk fd fnus'k us eq>s dsjkslhu Mkydj tyk;kA eSaus js[kk dk vaxwBk ,Dl LFkku ij djok;k Fkk D;ksafd js[kk tyh gqbZ Fkh blfy;s og gLrk{kj djus dh fLFkfr esa ugha Fkh js[kk us crk;k eSa ml le; dejs esa LosVj cqu jgh Fkh esjs lkl&llqj Hkh ;gkWa vk;s gq;s Fks vkSj og eq>s xkfy;kWa nsrs FksA lkl&llqj D;k xkfy;kWa nsrs Fks og T;knk ugha crk ldhA " The witness has proved that what was stated by Rekha was written down in Ex.P 44-A which stands proved. It will thus be seen that this witness is therefore, a witness not only to the written dying declaration of the deceased but is also a witness to the oral declaration made by the deceased in the face of death when she stated that she was put on fire by her husband. The dying declaration of the deceased is thus, proved. 21. P.W. 18 Bhagwat Singh is the Sub-Inspector, Udaipur who was at the relevant time posted at Rawat Bhata. He states that the dying declaration of deceased Rekha was recorded and written in presence of Dr. Yashpal Nakra. It was this witness who on the basis of Ex. P/12 registered the first information report, it is not even suggested to this witness that Doctor was not present when the dying declaration was recorded, the only suggestion was that no certificate was obtained by the witness from the Doctor regarding the condition of deceased Rekha at the time when the dying declaration was made by her. Thus, the presence of the Doctor at the time when the dying declaration was recorded is proved being duly corroborated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Police Officer P.W.s 17 and 18 respectively. 22. It will thus be seen that the dying declaration of the deceased Rekha is duly proved. Aparat from proving the dying declaration, the testimony of PWs. Thus, the presence of the Doctor at the time when the dying declaration was recorded is proved being duly corroborated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Police Officer P.W.s 17 and 18 respectively. 22. It will thus be seen that the dying declaration of the deceased Rekha is duly proved. Aparat from proving the dying declaration, the testimony of PWs. 16 to 18 that is Doctor, Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Station House Officer further prove as oral declaration the statement of deceased Rekha that she was put to death by burning by her husband Dinesh present appellant. It was on the basis of this evidence that the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the conviction and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 23. Shri R.K. Charan appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed this order of conviction and sentence on several grounds. He contended inter alia (A) that the dying declaration not being made in the proforma prescribed and is liable to be rejected, (B) that the dying declaration has not been recorded in presence of the Doctor, there is no certificate of the declaration regarding witness of the witness and therefore, that certificate was liable to be rejected, (C) that the dying declaration not being recorded in the proforma and not being certified by the Doctor is not a proper evidence, (D) the conviction solely based on this dying declaration is, therefore, incorrect as the dying declaration has not been duly corrected by substantial evidence and (E) the evidence on record does not rule out the possibility of suicide by the deceased and consequently, it is a fit case where a reasonable doubt is created regarding the manner of death of Rekha. It is not beyond reasonable doubt that the death was suicidal and not homicidal and the accused was author of it and therefore, the judgment of conviction is unsustainable. 24. It was contended by the learned counsel relying on several cases cited at the bar that the dying declaration is not reliable document because its worthiness is not proved, it is not made in proper forum, it is not properly endorsed by due certificate of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Doctor and therefore, doubts arise regarding credibility of that declaration which entails rejection. 25. 25. It was then contended by the learned counsel that if the dying declaration is excluded, there is no evidence on record to show that the death was homicidal and that the accused was responsible for that homicidal death. According to the learned counsel, the entire evidence of relatives of the deceased pertains to torture allegedly inflicted on the deceased by the accused and his father and mother months prior to the date of death and consequently, there is no evidence whatever on record to prove that there was any harassment and torture prior to the date of death and no conviction therefore, of any lesser nature is possible. 26. It was also contended that the prosecution having charged homicidal death and having failed to prove homicidal death, it is not possible to come to any other lesser offence. .In such circumstances, the learned counsel prayed for quashing of the order and acquittal of the accused. 27. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State strictly refused the contentions raised by the appellant and pointed out that dying declaration was duly proved by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at whose instance and whose presence it was recorded. He is duly corroborated by the Police Officer and the Doctor attending the patient at that time and consequently, there is no corroborative oral evidence regarding declaration made by Rekha, wherein she squarely blames the appellant accused for her death. Merely because the statement is recorded in the proforma, it cannot lose to its beneficiary value as it is duly corroborated by several other circumstances which themselves are duly proved. According to the learned counsel, it is a clear case of conviction rightly recorded by the learned Sessions Judge requiring no interference by this Court. 28. Having heard the counsel at length and having considered their arguments on re-appreciation of evidence as aforesaid, we are firmly of the view that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed-Conviction Upheld. *******