JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.9.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, convicting the appellant of offence under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case as set out during the trial is as follows : 3. Deceased Mst. Manju was married to Tarachand. Her father-in-law Hari Ram (appellant), was having evil eye on her. Tired of his conduct, Mst. Manju left her matrimonial home about three years back from the date of incident. However, Tarachand (husband) brought her assuring the parents of Mst. Manju that he will keep her at Raniwara. They stayed at Raniwara for about eight to nine months. Thereafter, he returned to Jodhpur alongwith his wife Mst. Manju and started living with parents. On 7th May 1993, as usual, Mst. Manju's husband went out for earning. Her mother-in-law, a vegetable vendor, went out for the job. At the house, there were non except deceased Mst. Manju and her father-in-law appellant Hari Ram. It is alleged that at about 9 A.M., the appellant again asked Mst. Manju to sleep with him. Mst. Manju refused to oblige him. She tried to run away but the accused sprinkled kerosene on her and lit fire, on account of which she was seriously burnt. After some time, her mother-in-law arrived and took her to the hospital. The hospital authorities informed the police. The S.H.O., Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur requested PW. 14 Surendra Kumar Sharma, A.C.J.M. No. 3, Jodhpur, to record the dying declaration of Mst. Manju. At 2 RM., P.W 14 Surendra Kumar Sharma recorded the dying declaration Ex.R 10 of Mst. After some time, her mother-in-law arrived and took her to the hospital. The hospital authorities informed the police. The S.H.O., Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur requested PW. 14 Surendra Kumar Sharma, A.C.J.M. No. 3, Jodhpur, to record the dying declaration of Mst. Manju. At 2 RM., P.W 14 Surendra Kumar Sharma recorded the dying declaration Ex.R 10 of Mst. Manju, which is extracted as under: " esjh 'kknh rkjkpan ds lkFk lkr lky iwoZ gqbZ Fkh esjk llqj gfjjke eq>dks 6&7 fnu esa NsM+rk FkkA og eq>s dgrk Fkk iyax ij lks tkvksA eSa ugha lksbZA vkt lqcg Hkh mlus dgk iayx ij lks tkvksA eSaus Hkkxus dh dksf'k'k dh rks mlus eq> ij dsjkslhu rsy ( ?kklysV ) Mky dj tyk fn;kA ;g lqcg 9 cts dh ckr gSA ?kj esa esjs llqj ds vykok dksbZ ugha FkkA lkl lCth ysus xbZ FkhA esjk vkneh ?kaVk?kj gksVy ij jgrk gSA og lqcg lkr cts gh pyk x;k FkkA esjs nks cPps ,d pkj lky dk yM+dk ,d 1&1@1 o"kZ dh yM+dh gSA rhu lky iwoZ Hkh esjs llqj us eq>s NsM+k Fkk rks 2&1@2 o"kZ rd eSa ihgj cSBh jghA esjs ifr dks igys okyh ckr dk ekywe gSA lkr fnu igys og ckr eSaus esjs vkneh dks ugha crkbZA esjh lkl dks eSaus vkt lqcg gh crkbZ Fkh fd esjs llqj esa eq>s vkt NsM+k gS og ckr eSaus lkl dks ugha crkbZA eSaus 3 o"kZ iwoZ esjs llqj }kjk NsMs+ tkus dh ckr esjs ihgj esa esjh ekWa dks crkbZ FkhA " 4. Mst. Manju succumbed to the injuries on 13.5.93 in M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. The autopsy was conducted by the Medical Board consisting of PW. 13 Dr. N.S. Kothari, Dr. S.R Singh and Dr. Subodh Saxena. On her death, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences under sections 302, 354 IPC. 5. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined fifteen witnesses. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that he has been falsely implicated. Analysing the evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above. 6. Mr. R.K. Gahlot, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the trial court has committed error in relying on dying declaration Ex.R 10. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that he has been falsely implicated. Analysing the evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above. 6. Mr. R.K. Gahlot, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the trial court has committed error in relying on dying declaration Ex.R 10. It is submitted that Mst. Manju as the time of admission in the hospital disclosed to P.W. 15 Dr. Bhupendra Singh that she was burnt accidentally while preparing tea. This was recorded by the doctor on the bed head ticket Ex.P. 21 at 9.15 A.M. The said statement of Mst. Manju, being the first statement, ought to have been preferred to dying declaration Ex.P. 10, which was recorded at 2 RM. It is further submitted that dying declaration Ex.P. 10 suffers from number of infirmities. It is also submitted that Ex.R 10 is a tutored statement. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court. 7. We have scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the prosecution evidence and considered the rival contentions. 8. PW. 13 Dr. N.S. Kothari has stated that he was one of the members of the Board, which conducted the post mortem of the dead body of deceased Mst. Manju. He has noted the burnt condition of the body as follows : "The whole body shows extensive burns, involving face (except scalp), Neck complete, chest anteriorly and posteriorly, abdomen (except pubic & perineum) lumber region, both glutaeal region, both upper limbs (except left hand upto wrist, both thighs, right leg (except anterior aspect & frontal aspect of right foot), left leg posteriorly (except antero lateral & medical aspect of left leg and dorsal & frontal aspect of foot left side). The burn area shown healing, inflammation blisters and infection (sepsis) & about 80% burn area." He has proved the post mortem, report Ex.P. 20. In the opinion of the medical board, the cause of death was shock and septicaemia due to extensive burns about 80%. 9. P.W. 1 Smt. Misia is the mother of deceased Mst. Manju. She has stated that when her daughter Manju visited her, she disclosed the fact that she was being teased by her father-in-law. She also stated that after marriage, her daughter stayed with them and thereafter with her husband at Raniwara. 9. P.W. 1 Smt. Misia is the mother of deceased Mst. Manju. She has stated that when her daughter Manju visited her, she disclosed the fact that she was being teased by her father-in-law. She also stated that after marriage, her daughter stayed with them and thereafter with her husband at Raniwara. She told her son-in-law about the conduct of his father. He assured that he will keep Mst. Manju at Raniwara. On receiving the information with respect to the death of Manju, she went to the hospital. She also stated that the Magistrate had recorded her statement before she reached to the hospital. She also stated that her daughter Mst. Manju told her that her father-in-law asked her to sleep with him and as she refused to oblige him, he sprinkled kerosene on her and lit fire. She also stated that at the time of incident, there was none except her father-in-law. 10. P.W. 2 Satyadev has stated that appellant Hari Ram was arrested by the S.H.O. Munshi Singh on 5.7.93. 11. PW. 3 Narain, PW. 4 Hira Ram and PW. 5 Lumba Ram are the formal witnesses. 12. PW. 6 Chhanwar Lal is the father of deceased Manju. His statement is almost in the line of P.W. 1 Mst. Misia. 13. P.W. 7 Shyamlal is the maternal uncle of deceased Manju. He has also stated that Mst. Manju complained to him about teasing by her father-in-law. He also stated that her father-in-law used to ask her for sexual favour. His statement is also almost in the line of P.W. 1 Mst. Misia. He also stated that on hearing the news of the incident, he rushed to the hospital. Mst. Manju told her that in the morning at about 9 A.M., she was in the room on the first floor. Her father-in-law asked her to sleep with him. She refused to oblige him. When she wanted to run away, her father-in-law poured kerosene on her and lit fire. 14. PW. 8 Manohar Ram, PW. 9 Puna Ram, PW. 10 Virendra Singh and P.W. 11 Chimna Ram are the formal police witnesses. 15. P.W. 12 Munshi Singh, S.H.O., Police Station, Shastri Nagar, has given the details of the investigation. 16. PW. 14 Dr. Surendra Kumar Sharma, who was Addl. 14. PW. 8 Manohar Ram, PW. 9 Puna Ram, PW. 10 Virendra Singh and P.W. 11 Chimna Ram are the formal police witnesses. 15. P.W. 12 Munshi Singh, S.H.O., Police Station, Shastri Nagar, has given the details of the investigation. 16. PW. 14 Dr. Surendra Kumar Sharma, who was Addl. C.J.M. No. 3, Jodhpur at the relevant time, has stated that on the request of S.H.O., RS., Shastri Nagar, he went to the hospital and after certification by the doctor that Mst. Manju was in a fit condition to give her statement, he recorded her statement Ex.R 10. 17. P.W. 15 Dr. Bhupendra Singh was House Surgeon at the relevant time in the Burn Unit of the M.G. Hospital. He proved the bed head ticket Ex.R 20. 18. The question arises for consideration is as to whether the conviction of the appellant on the basis of dying declaration Ex.R 10 can be sustained in view of the statement of PW. 15 Dr. Bhupendra Singh that at the earliest, deceased Mst. Manju disclosed to her that she sustained burn injuries on account of accident. It is true that PW. 15 Dr. Bhupendra Singh in the cross examination has stated that on his query, Mst. Manju disclosed that while she was preparing tea, her clothes caught fire and on account of that, she was burnt. It would be convenient to extract the statement of PW. 15 Dr. Bhupendra Singh as follows: " 7-5-93 dks eSa cuZ ;wfuV esa FkkA eatw 9-50 ij HkrhZ gqbZ Fkh eSaus eatw ls iwNk Fkk fd vki fdl izdkj tyh gks mlus crk;k fd og pk; cuk jgh Fkh & rks mlds diM+ksa esa vkx yx xbZ vkSj og ty xbZA " 19. He also stated that he made an endorsement to that effect in the bed head ticket Ex.R 21. The endorsement in Ex.P. 21 is as follows : "According to patient, she was apparently alright since before 8 A.M. on 7.5.93. She developed by flame burn by stove when she was preparing tea." 20. The word 'tea' is in different ink and appears to have been added later on. He also admitted in the cross-examination that when he attended Mst. Manju, her relatives were present. It is evident that Mst. She developed by flame burn by stove when she was preparing tea." 20. The word 'tea' is in different ink and appears to have been added later on. He also admitted in the cross-examination that when he attended Mst. Manju, her relatives were present. It is evident that Mst. Manju was taken to the hospital by her mother-in-law, therefore, at that point of time, it is only her relatives from the father-in-law side, who could be present there. In such a situation, out of fear as well as out of shame, she might not be in a position to make a statement about the misconduct of her father-in-law. In the presence of her mother-in-law, she appears to have tried to avoid the implication of her father-in-law. Dr. Bhupendra Singh has also admitted that Dr. Ajit Mai Singhvi was treating doctor of Mst. Manju. He also admitted that he used to work under him. He also admitted that signatures were obtained on certain blank papers from him. The relevant statement is extracted as follows : " eatw dk fV~fVax Mk0 vthrey fla?koh FkkA eq>ls dksjs dkxt ij i`"Bkadu djk;k x;k FkkA ge mlds v.Mj esa dke djrs gSaA " 21. It appears that Dr. Bhupendra Singh is a person, who is readily available to oblige anybody. He has even gone to the extent of signing on blank papers. In view of this, the dying declaration recorded by Dr. Bhupendra Singh does not inspire confidence. The only criticism against the dying declaration Ex.R 10 is that there were chances of tutoring. There is no substance in the contention as the mother and father and other relatives of Mst. Manju arrived in the hospital after P.W. 14 Surendra Kumar Sharma, A.C.J.M., had recorded her statement. There was also the immediate reason for finishing Mst. Manju by the appellant as in the morning of the fateful day, deceased Mst. Manju disclosed the misconduct of the appellant to her mother-in-law. There is also the evidence of other witnesses i.e. P.W. 1st. Misia, P.W. 6 Chhanwarlal and P.W. 7 Shyamlal that Mst. Manju had complained of misconduct of her father-in-kaw. In our opinion, the dying declaration Ex.P. 10 is natural and truthful version of the incident corroborated by the medical evidence and other evidence about the misconduct of the appellant. There is also the evidence of other witnesses i.e. P.W. 1st. Misia, P.W. 6 Chhanwarlal and P.W. 7 Shyamlal that Mst. Manju had complained of misconduct of her father-in-kaw. In our opinion, the dying declaration Ex.P. 10 is natural and truthful version of the incident corroborated by the medical evidence and other evidence about the misconduct of the appellant. Thus, in our opinion, the learned Trial Court was right in convicting the appellant relying on the dying declaration Ex.P. 10 corroborated by the medical evidence and statements of P.W. 1 Mst. Misia, P.W. 6 Chhanwarlal and P.W. 7 Shyamlal. 22. Consequently, we find no merit in the Criminal Appeal and the same is dismissed. The appellant is in jail. He will serve-out the remaining part of the sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******