JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—In this appeal appellant has assailed the judgment dated 31.8.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby he was convicted under Section 302 IPC for having committed murder of his wife Nisha Devi on 13.5.1998 at about 2.00 p.m. at village Rehan, District Kangra by during kerosine on her and setting her on fire. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3,000. In default of payment of fine, he shall further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Nisha Devi was brought by her relatives to P.H.C. Rehan, where she was attended upon by Doctor R.K. Mehta PW-1, who found that she had suffered about 95% burns and issued M.L.C. Ex. PW-1/A. Doctor R.K. Mehta had referred her to Civil Hospital, Nurpur but her relatives took her to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, where she was admitted by Dr. K.A.S. Dadwal PW-4 at 4.45 p.m. On the same day at about 5.30 p.m. Doctor R.K. Mahajan, Medical Officer of the Hospital, who was on emergency duty sent intimation to SHO, Police Station Dharamshala vide letter Ex. PW-3/A that Nisha Devi was admitted in the hospital as a burn case. After entering Rapat Roznamacha Ex. PW-12/A by Kuldip Singh PW-12 Moharrar Head Constable of Police Station Dharamshala, ASI Surinder Kumar PW-13 proceeded to the hospital and gave application Ex. PW-13/A to the Medical Officer, who gave his opinion Ex. PW-13/B on the said application that the patient was fit to make statement and thereafter recorded the statement of Nisha Devi Ex. PW-3/C in the presence of Doctor R.K. Mahajan. The statement was read over to Nisha Devi, who had put her thumb mark on it, which was also attested by Doctor R.K. Mahajan. Thereafter the statement was sent to Police Station Nurpur for the registration of the case vide Endorsement Ex. PW-13/B arid FIR No. 123 dated 13.5.1998 was recorded. 2. On the next day i.e. 14.5.1998 Sub-Inspector Rup Lal posted at Police Station, Nurpur moved an application Ex. PW-8/A before Executive Magistrate Bihari Lal PW-8 requesting him to record the statement of Nisha Devi, who after reaching the hospital moved an application Ex. PW-4/G to Doctor KAS. Dadwal seeking his opinion as to whether Nisha Devi was fit to make statement or not. PW-8/A before Executive Magistrate Bihari Lal PW-8 requesting him to record the statement of Nisha Devi, who after reaching the hospital moved an application Ex. PW-4/G to Doctor KAS. Dadwal seeking his opinion as to whether Nisha Devi was fit to make statement or not. At about 3.05 p.m. Doctor KAS Dadwal issued certificate Ex. PW-4/G that the patient was fit to give statement and thereafter Executive Magistrate Bihari Lal recorded the statement of Nisha Devi Ex. PW-8/B at about 3.13 p.m. which bears her thumb impression with the endorsement that the statement was read over to her and she had admitted it to be correct. Executive Magistrate Bihari Lal also appended his certificate Ex. PW-8/C on it. 3. It is on record that Nisha Devi died on 18.5.1^)98 at about 12.35 a.m. and Doctor C.S. Rathore PW-5 Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala informed SHO Police Station, Dharamshala vide letter Ex. PW-5/A. On receipt of the information Sub-Inspector Rup Lal prepared inquest reports Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C and post mortem on the dead body of Nisha Devi was conducted by Doctor D.P. Swamy PW-2 and Doctor Neelam Mahajan, who gave their post mortem report Ex. PW-2/D. Investigating Officer H.C. Manmohan Singh PW-17 has prepared spot map Ex. PW-17/A and took into possession cany of kerosine, steel glass, burnt clothes and ash Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-12 vide recovery memo Ex. PW-9/A in the presence of witnesses, one of whom, namely, Balwant Singh PW-10 has appeared in the witness box. The appellant was apprehended on 14.5.1998 by Sub-Inspector Rup Lal at Dharamshala, who was medically examined on 18.5.1998 by Doctor R.K. Chaudhary PW-6, who issued M.L.C. Ex. PW-6/B. 4. After analysing the evidence on record the Sessions Judge has found both the dying declarations worthy of credence to hold the appellant guilty. It weighed with the Sessions Judge that the first dying declaration was recorded within about four hours of the occurrence and second dying declaration within 24-25 hours of the occurrence and also that none of the relatives from the parents side of deceased Nisha Devi was present to tutor or influence her to give statement against her husband. The Sessions Judge has relied upon the statement of Doctor R.K. Mahajan PW-3 and Doctor K.A.S. Dadwal PW-4, who had certified at both the occasions that Nisha Devi was in fit state of mind to make the statement. The Sessions Judge has relied upon the statement of Doctor R.K. Mahajan PW-3 and Doctor K.A.S. Dadwal PW-4, who had certified at both the occasions that Nisha Devi was in fit state of mind to make the statement. According to the Sessions Judge, these Medical Officers, the Executive Magistrate and ASI had no reason to favour deceased Nisha Devi and falsely depose against the appellant. The Sessions Judge has rejected the defence raised by the appellant that from the burn injuries received by him it is proved that he had tried to extinguish the fire to save Nisha Devi, who had either committed suicide or was caught in an accidental fire. Accordingly, the Sessions Judge has held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC but in the absence of any evidence on record acquitted him of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 5. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The first submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant is that from the evidence on record it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the dying declarations Ex. PW-3/C and PW-8/B are genuine documents and free from embellishment. Referring to the statement of Doctor R.K. Mehta PW-1 Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Rehan that skin all over the body was charred, blackened, peeled off easily on touching and burns were approximately 95% and were dangerous to life, and also that of Doctor R.K. Mahajan PW-3 and Doctor K.A.S. Dhadwal PW-4 that burns were 90 to 95% and hands were also burnt, learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that it cannot be believed that Nisha Devi had put her thumb impression on dying declarations Ex. PW-3/C and PW-8/B. Learned Counsel has also referred to the statements of these doctors where they have admitted that with the lapse of time the condition of patient with burn injuries deteriorates and also that Nisha Devi was in a ; critical condition to urge that she was not in a fit state of mind to make the statements in question. 6. In order to appreciate this argument we would refer to the statements of the prosecution witnesses who have proved these two dying declarations. So far as first dying declaration Ex. PW-3/C is concerned, it is scribed by ASI Surinder Kumar PW-13 and attested by Doctor R.K. Mahajan PW-3. 6. In order to appreciate this argument we would refer to the statements of the prosecution witnesses who have proved these two dying declarations. So far as first dying declaration Ex. PW-3/C is concerned, it is scribed by ASI Surinder Kumar PW-13 and attested by Doctor R.K. Mahajan PW-3. In the statements of both these witnesses it has come that after the admission of Nisha Devi in Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, she was attended upon by Doctor R.K. Mahajan, who sent letter Ex. PW-3/A to SHO, Police Station Dharamshala at 5.30 p.m. informing him that he should come and record statement of Nisha Devi, as she was in a critical state. On receipt of this letter ASI Surinder Kumar PW-13 had reached the hospital and moved application Ex. PW-13/A to the Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala on which Doctor R.K. Mahajan PW-3 made endorsement Ex. PW-3/B that Nisha Devi was fit to make statement. It was thereafter that the statement Ex. PW-3/C was recorded by ASI Surinder Kumar PW-13 in the presence of Doctor R.K. Mahajan PW-3. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that Nisha Devi had put her thumb mark on the statement after it was read over to her. Doctor R.K. Mahajan PW-3 has fully supported the prosecution by stating that he had attested the statement Ex. PW-3/C of Nisha Devi, which was made in his presence. In his cross-examination he has admitted that approximately 90 to 95% burns were present on the body of Nisha Devi but has denied that palmer sides of her hands were burnt. He has further denied the suggestion that Nisha Devi was not in a fit state to make statement and the statement Ex. PW-3/C was nothers. On the basis of record Doctor R.K. Mahajan PW-3 has stated that Nisha Devi was accompanied by her father-in-law and other relatives at the time of her admission in the hospital. This witness has also reiterated that Nisha Devi had made the statement that the appellant had poured on her body a glass full of kerosine and thereafter set her on fire as he was suspecting her character. 7. ASI Surinder Kumar PW-13 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that at the time of recording the statement of Nisha Devi no person from her parental side was present and only her father-in-law, namely, Multan Singh was present besides Doctor R.K. Mahajan. 7. ASI Surinder Kumar PW-13 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that at the time of recording the statement of Nisha Devi no person from her parental side was present and only her father-in-law, namely, Multan Singh was present besides Doctor R.K. Mahajan. He has admitted that both hands of Nisha Devi were having minor effect of fire (JHULSE HUAE) but self stated that they were not in such a condition that she could not affix her thumb mark on her statement. He had got the right hand thumb impression of Nisha Devi on the statement Ex. PW-3/C. From the statements of these two witnesses it is proved that Nisha Devi was in a fit state of mind when she had voluntarily made statement Ex. PW-3/C without being tutored and influenced by any of her relations from parental side as this statement was recorded within a few hours from the time she suffered the burn injuries. It can be treated as her untainted first version. 8. So far as second dying declaration Ex. PW-8/B is concerned, it was recorded by Shri Bihari Lal PW-8, the Executive Magistrate. On receipt of statement Ex. PW-3/C in Police Station, Nurpur, Sub-Inspector Rup Lal PW-18 recorded FIR Ex. PW-18/A on 14.5.1998. He moved an application Ex. PW-8/A to Shri Bihari Lal, Executive Magistrate requesting him to record the statement of Nisha Devi in the hospital. On receipt of application Ex. PW-8/A Shri Bihari Lal PW-8 Executive Magistrate visited hospital at 3.00 p.m. and moved an application Ex. PW 4/G on which Doctor K.A.S. Dhadwal PW-4 gave his opinion Ex. PW-4/G that Nisha Devi was fit to make statement. It was thereafter that Shri Bihari Lal PW-8, the Executive Magistrate recorded the statement Ex. PW-8/B which bears his certificate Ex. PW-8/C that the statement was read over to Nisha Devi, who after admitting its contents had put her thumb mark. The statement Ex. PW-8/B also bears a certificate of Shri Bihari Lal PW-8 the Executive Magistrate that nobody was present at the time of recording the statement. In his cross-examination Shri Bihari Lal PW-8 has categorically denied that relations from the parental side of Nisha Devi were present at the time of recording her statement. He has also denied the suggestion that right hand thumb of Nisha Devi was completely burnt. 9. Doctor K.A.S. Dhadwal PW-4 has stated that on receipt of application Ex. In his cross-examination Shri Bihari Lal PW-8 has categorically denied that relations from the parental side of Nisha Devi were present at the time of recording her statement. He has also denied the suggestion that right hand thumb of Nisha Devi was completely burnt. 9. Doctor K.A.S. Dhadwal PW-4 has stated that on receipt of application Ex. PW-4/G he had examined Nisha Devi on 14.5.1998 at 3.05 p.m. and given his opinion Ex. PW-4/G. He has admitted in his cross-examination that Nisha Devi was having 95% burns and except her scalp and soles whole of the body was charred. He has also stated that the hands of Nisha Devi were burnt and she was having swelling on her hands but has denied that the skin of her hands was peeled off. Doctor Dhadwal has further denied the suggestion that Nisha Devi was not in a position to make statement on 14.5.1998 and has explained that on or around 16.5.2000 she had gone into coma and finally died. He has further stated on the basis of bed head ticket Ex. PW-4/A that on 14.5.1998 at 9.00 a.m. the condition of Nisha Devi was semi-conscious, she regained consciousness at about 3.00 p.m. and was declared fit to make statement. This witness has categorically denied that he had made endorsement Ex. PW-4/G on the application Ex. PW-4/G that Nisha Devi was fit to make statement under the pressure of relations of Nisha Devi from her parental side or the police. Therefore, from the statements of these two witnesses Doctor K.A.S. Dhadwal PW-4 and Shri Bihari Lal PW-8, the Executive Magistrate, the second dying declaration Ex. PW-8/B is proved to be voluntarily made by Nisha Devi in her fit state of mind without being tutored and influenced by any person. 10. No doubt from the evidence of the doctors it is proved that Nisha Devi was having 90 to 95% burn injuries and her condition was critical but they have categorically deposed that she was in a fit state of mind at the time her statements were recorded and she was able to put thumb impression of her right hand on the statements. It is also proved on record that the statements were read over to Nisha Devi by their scribes before she put thumb impression of her right hand on them. It is also proved on record that the statements were read over to Nisha Devi by their scribes before she put thumb impression of her right hand on them. It is correct that the doctors have stated that the hands of Nisha Devi were got burnt to some extent or were having some minor effect of fire but they have further stated in no uncertain terms that the thumb of her right hand was in such a condition as to enable her to put its impression on her statements. There are no reasons to disbelieve the doctors as well as the Executive Magistrate, who were not interested to depose against the appellant. It is also ruled out that at the time of recording the statements any relation from the parents side of Nisha Devi was present to tutor or influence her in any manner. The first statement was recorded within about 4 hours and the second statement after 24 to 25 hours from the occurrence, during which period none of her relations from the parents side had occasion to tutor her or influence her to state against her husband. Hence these statements can be held as genuine and worthy of reliance. These statements are also consistent that it was the appellant who poured kerosine into a glass from a cany and threw upon her and thereafter set her on fire by lighting match stick. We do not find any substance in the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant that in the normal course Nisha Devi would have used her hands in order to save herself and it was not possible that the thumb of her right hand was not got burnt and she was able to put its impression on the statements in view of positive statement of the doctors and the scribes that she did put her thumb impressions on her statements. 11. From the dying declarations the motive as to why the appellant had thrown kerosine on his wife and set her on fire has also been proved, which further strenghthens the case of the prosecution. It is in the dying declarations that the appellant, who himself is a handicaped person, used to suspect Nisha Devi for having illicit relations with his elder brother and father. 12. It is in the dying declarations that the appellant, who himself is a handicaped person, used to suspect Nisha Devi for having illicit relations with his elder brother and father. 12. By now it is well settled that conviction can be based solely on dying declaration provided it is truthful and inspires confidence. In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22, it is held that necessity for corroboration of dying declaration does not arise from its any inherent weakness as a piece of evidence but from the fact that the Court in a given case has come to the conclusion that particular dying declaration was not free from infirmities. Relying upon this judgment it is further held in Munnu Raja and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2199, that though a dying declaration must be approached with caution for the reason that the maker of the statement cannot be subjected to cross-examination, there is neither a rule of law nor a rule of prudence which has hardened into a rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. In Dalip Singh and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1173, it is held in para 8: “......We may also add that although a dying declaration recorded by a Police Officer during the course of the investigation is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act in view of the exception provided in sub-section (2) of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is better to leave such dying declarations out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the court as to why it was not recorded by a Magistrate or by a Doctor. As observed by this Court in Munnu Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 2 SCR 764, the practice of the Investigating Officer himself recording a dying declaration during the course of investigation ought not to be encouraged. We do not mean to suggest that such dying declarations are always untrustworthy, but, what we want to emphasize is that better and more reliable methods of recording a dying declaration of an injured person should be taken recourse to and the one recorded by the Police Officer may be relied upon if there was no time or facility available to the prosecution for adopting any better method” 13. In Kumbhar Dhirajlal Mohanlal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 1531, in almost similar circumstances, as are on record in the case in hand, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court held the husband guilty of the murder of his wife relying upon a statement made at the first instance to the doctor immediately after her admission in the hospital and thereafter to the Executive Magistrate, who was requested for the purpose as it is proved on record that while making the statement she was in a fit state of mind and fully conscious. The defence of the husband that he got some burn injuries while trying to extinguish the fire, which had broken out accidently, was also rejected on the ground that a shrewed person may adopt such tactics of first setting his wife on fire and then making a show to extinguish the fire and thereafter remain by her side. 14. In Jai Prakash and others v. State of Haryana, 1999 Cri LJ 837, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court relied upon the statement made to the police by the deceased which was later on treated as dying declaration on her death in the absence of any material on record that regular dying declaration could be recorded before her death. Even the absence of any certificate or endorsement by the doctor on the statement that she was in a fit state of mind to make statement was not considered necessary for the reason that the said statement was recorded as a complaint which was later on treated as dying declaration on her death in view of the other evidence on record that she was in a fit condition to make statement. 15. Applying the principles laid down in the above stated judgments to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation to hold that the dying declarations Ex. PW-3/C and Ex. PW-8/B are genuine, truthful, free from any doubt and worthy of credence to hold that it was the appellant who had thrown kerosine on Nisha Devi and thereafter set her on fire. PW-3/C and Ex. PW-8/B are genuine, truthful, free from any doubt and worthy of credence to hold that it was the appellant who had thrown kerosine on Nisha Devi and thereafter set her on fire. We do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that had the appellant thrown kerosine on Nisha Devi and set her on fire, she would have given his name to Doctor R.K. Mehta, Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Rehan and he would have mentioned in MLC Ex. PW-l/A in view of the admission of Doctor R.K. Mehta PW-1 that he did not try to find out from Nisha Devi as to what was the cause of fire. However, this itself is not enough to disbelieve the dying declarations which have otherwise been found as genuine. There is also no substance in the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant that adverse inference should be drawn since the prosecution has not examined material witness Multan Singh, the father-in-law of Nisha Devi. No doubt it has come on record that he was present at the house at the time of occurrence and accompanied Nisha Devi to the hospital but being father of the appellant it cannot be expected of him to depose against his son. In these circumstances the prosecution is justified in not producing him as its witness. 16. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the appellant has emphasized that since the appellant had also suffered injuries in the process when he tried to save Nisha Devi by extinguishing fire, it probabilises his defence that Nisha Devi had either committed suicide or met with accidental fire. We do not find any substance in this submission, as it is also possible that after setting Nisha Devi on fire and ensuring that she was burnt to a great extent the appellant might have tried to extinguish the fire to create evidence in his favour. The facts of the case in hand are similar to the case in Kumbhar Dhirajlal Mohanlal v. State of Gujarat (supra) in which the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have rejected such a defence having found the dying declaration truthful. Moreover, we find that the injuries suffered by the appellant were not serious and he did not get himself treated in any hospital till he was arrested on 14.5.1998 and was got medically examined. Moreover, we find that the injuries suffered by the appellant were not serious and he did not get himself treated in any hospital till he was arrested on 14.5.1998 and was got medically examined. The evidence on record clearly shows that there were particles of kerosine in the cany and the steel glass, which were recovered and sent to the expert for opinion, and the possibility of accidental fire was ruled out. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the investigation has not been fair as the finger prints on the steel glass were not taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner to connect the appellant with the commission of crime, is not of much consequence in view of the dying declarations which are found to be truthful and trustworthy. 17. The result of above discussion is that we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is rejected. Appeal rejected.