Honble PRASAD, J.–The present appeal arises out of the judgment delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated 12.8.1997 in sessions case no. 47/96, whereby, he convicted the accused appellants under Section 302 IPC. (2). Police Station Merta Road received an information that a lady named Chuki has been subjected to burns. P.W.3 Nema Ram was detailed by S.H.O., Merta Road to record her statement. On such instructions P.W.3, Nema Ram went to the Govt. Hospital,Merta. After obtaining certification of the Doctor, Ex.P/1, statement of Smt. Chuki was recorded by him. On the basis of this statement which was endorsed by the Doctor on duty at `E to `F. A formal F.I.R. was recorded by the S.H.O. on the basis of this statement as Ex.P/4. (3). Looking to the situation the Investigating Officer felt persuaded that Smt. Chuki may not be able to sustain the shock of injury sustained by her,therefore, he made an application to the Judicial Magistrate, Merta City through the Assistant Public Prosecutor on 16.9.1996 itself. On this application, the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the statement of Smt. Chuki. Before the statement was recor- ded the learned Magistrate took certification from the Doctor on Ex.P/3 from portion `C to `D. The Doctor has appended his signatures. Having obtained the certification from the Doctor the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the statement of Smt. Chuki, it is Ex.P/8. P.W.5, Ramesh Chandra Pareekh, after completing the investigation, presented the challan. On the basis of challan charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 302 IPC. To support its case the prosecution produced 9 witnesses. Defence produced P.W.1 Pappu Ram, husband of the deceased. (4). The trial Court, after conclusion of the trial, heard the arguments in the case and observed that the case rests on the two dying declarations of late Smt. Chuki, one recorded by the police and another recorded by the learned Magistrate. Having discussed the process of recording the dying declaration, the learned Magistrate found that there was no infirmity in the adopted process. The deceased at the time of making statement was certified by the Doctor to be fit to give the statement and, therefore all precautions were taken before the statement was re- corded by the learned Magistrate. Having discussed the process of recording the dying declaration, the learned Magistrate found that there was no infirmity in the adopted process. The deceased at the time of making statement was certified by the Doctor to be fit to give the statement and, therefore all precautions were taken before the statement was re- corded by the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge also found that there was no circumstance indicating that there was any tutoring of the deceased, to depose in a particular fashion. Both the dying declarations recorded vide Ex.P/2 and P/8 corroborate each other and there was no difference in them. The examination of scene of occurrence and the recoveries thereof corroborate the dying de- claration in its substantive part and thus found the case proved and relied upon certain Supreme Court decisions:- (i) State of Rajasthan vs. Kishore (1). (ii) State of U.P. vs. Ameer Ali (2). (ii) Smt. Paniben vs. State of Gujarat (3) and (iii) Sohan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (4). (5). The learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that the prosecution case is solely based on the dying declarations which are not free from taints. There was every possibility of Smt. Chuki being tutored, so much so the husband of late Smt. Chuki has appeared in defence as D.W.1 and has deposed that the mother and sister of the deceased were talking to her. Since there was possibility of tutoring, the sole evidence of dying declaration should not be relied. To press his case, he relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in Smt. Jaini Kayamkhani vs. State of Rajasthan (5) and another judgment of this Court in the case of Kalawati vs. State of Rajasthan (6). (6). Learned Public Prosecutor, replying to the arguments of the learned cou- nsel for the appellant has stated that in both the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant there were circumstances indicating that the dying declaration which was recorded was not worthy of reliance. As in the case of Smt. Jaini (supra) the prosecution witnesses had deposed in such a fashion that defence version was supported by them. Similar were the circumstances in case of kalawati vs. State (supra), where many circumstances existed which supported the defence version and, therefore, dying declaration was not believed in these cases. As in the case of Smt. Jaini (supra) the prosecution witnesses had deposed in such a fashion that defence version was supported by them. Similar were the circumstances in case of kalawati vs. State (supra), where many circumstances existed which supported the defence version and, therefore, dying declaration was not believed in these cases. The learned Magistrate has not been cross examined about the possibility of tutoring nor the Investigating Officer or the Doctor has been examined in this light. No definite stand has been taken that there was tutoring inasmuch as the only defence witness also does not say that any specific tutoring was done to the deceased. He only says that the deceased was seen talking with the mother and sister. Nothing has been indicated to be wrong in the dying declaration and, therefore, there is no reason why the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate, which has not been impugned, should not be believed to be a valid piece of evidence and the conviction cannot be said to be bad in the eye of law. (7). We have read both the dying declarations alongwith the learned counsel for the parties. Ex.P/2 is the first Dying Declaration. This has been recorded by police. In this statement, it has been stated by Smt. Chuki that while she was in her house, both the accused came, poured kerosine and lit her. There is clear accusation against both the accused. The second Dying Declaration Ex.P/8 has been recorded by the Magistrate. This has been recorded in question answer form. The nature of accusation against both the accused is same. In term there is no difference in both the Dying Declarations. The defence has not made any attempt to bring in any circumstance by cross examination to suggest that any particular tutoring was done to the deceased by any of the witnesses. Merely expressing the doubt by the fact that the deceased was observed taking to her mother and sister does not by itself indicate that there was any tutoring. No defence theory was put to the witnesses in cross examination. No case was set up to establish that the prosecu- tion witnesses had anything against the accused persons to tutor the deceased for deposing against them. (8). No defence theory was put to the witnesses in cross examination. No case was set up to establish that the prosecu- tion witnesses had anything against the accused persons to tutor the deceased for deposing against them. (8). In this back ground, we find it difficult to disbelieve the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate and if the dying declaration is believed as such then there is no reason why the conviction recorded against the appellant should be disturbed. In totality the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case. (9). In the result, we are not inclined to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and consequently the appeal fails. The conviction and sentence recorded against the accused are maintained. The appeal is dismissed.