JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter for about half an hour. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court committed error in relying upon the evidence of learned Judicial Magistrate who has recorded the dying declaration because the dying declaration does not contain any certificate by the doctor that the patient was conscious and was in a fit state of mind at the time of recording the statement. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors. v. State of A.P., (1999) 7 SCC 695 particularly paragraphs 8 and 9 wherein this Court has observed as under: "In our opinion, the certificate appended to the dying declaration at the end by Dr. Smt. K. Vishnupriya Devi (PW-10) did not comply with the requirement inasmuch as she has failed to certify that injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of recording the dying declaration. The certificate of the said expert at the end only says that "patient is conscious while recording the statement". In view of these material omissions, it would not be safe to accept the dying declaration (Ex. P-14) as true and genuine and as made when the injured was in a fit state of mind." 3. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent referred to the decision of this Court in Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 9 SCC 562 wherein the Court observed as under: "It further appears from her evidence that though there has been no endorsement on the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate with regard to the condition of the patient but there has been an endorsement on the police yadi, indicating that Dhanuben was fully conscious. In view of the aforesaid evidence of the Magistrate and in view of the endorsement of the doctor on the police yadi and no reason having been ascribed as to why the Magistrate would try to help the prosecution, we see no justification in the comments of Mr. Keswani that the dying declaration should not be relied upon in the absence of the endorsement of the doctor thereon." 4. Keswani that the dying declaration should not be relied upon in the absence of the endorsement of the doctor thereon." 4. It appears to us that merely not recording of a certificate by a doctor on a dying declaration would not be a ground for discarding the dying declaration which is recorded by an independent Judicial Magistrate. Under the law even oral dying declaration is admissible in evidence. However, because of the conflicting decision rendered by three Judges Bench, question requires to be resolved by a larger Bench. Hence, the matter may be placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate direction.