Judgment Ashok Kumar Verma, J. 1. The sole appellant has filed this appeal against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 1996, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. This case was instituted on the iardbeyan of Kumbhiya Devi (since deceased). In short the case of the prosecution is that on 25.10.1995 at about 7.30 P.M. the informant Kumbhiya Devi was at her house. At that time her brother-in-law (Bhaisur) accused Srinath Prasad came there and asked her for sexual relation to which she protested. Then Srinath Prasad poured kerosene oil on her body and put fire. The informant was severely burnt. On hulla the neighbours came and took her to the Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi for medical treatment on jeep of one Bharat Prasad where her fardbeyan was recorded at 9.02 P.M. by S.I., S. Sharma. The fardbeyan of the informant Kumbhiya Devi (since deceased) bears the signature of the said Bharat Prasad on whose jeep the informant was taken to hospital, which is Ext. 1/1. It also bears the signature of Dr. B. Prasad, Medical Officer of the Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi which is Ext. 1/5. On the basis of the fardbeyan the formal F.I.R. was drawn. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 3. The main defence of the accused, according to the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. In this case 13 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 2 Bindeshwar Sah, P.W. 5 Ram Sewak Sah, P.W. 6 Mahanth Sah and P.W. 7 Raghunath Prasad have been tendered bv the prosecution. P.W. 4 Saniharia Devi, P.W.8 Bharat Prasad and P.W.10 Rajendra Prasad have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Now it is well settled that the evidence of hostile witnesses to the extent it corroborates the prosecution version can also be relied upon, P.W. 4 Sanjharia Devi has stated that she had seen that the body of Kumbhiya Devi was under fire and she was taken to Sitamarhi hospital. In her cross-examination she has stated that Kumbhiya Devi was in the kitchen and a bottle of kerosene oil was lying. In her cross-examination she has stated that Kumbhiya Devi was in the kitchen and a bottle of kerosene oil was lying. It is relevant to mention here that the occurrence had taken place at 7.30 P.M. and the fardbeyan of the deceased informant was recorded at Sitamarhi Hospital at 9.02 P.M. P.W. 12 Dr. Bharat Prasad has stated that Kumbhiya Devi was admitted for the treatment of burn injury and he found her mentally fit to make, statement and her statement was recorded by S.I., S. Sharma in his presence and after recording of the statement he also put his signature in token of satisfying the fitness of the patient to make statment and also as a witness to the recording of the statement. Ext. 1/5 is his signature on the fardbeyan. He has said in his cross-examination that even in a case of 100% burn one can be normal and conscious. Nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, the prosecution case that the informant had fire in her body and she had sustained burn injuries and she was taken to Hospital is supported by the evidence of P.W. 4 Sanjharia Devi. P.W. 8 Bharat Prasad has also stated that Kumbhiya was badly burnt and they took her to Sitamarhi hospital and police had come there but her statement was not recorded before him. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution. He has himself said when cross examined on behalf of the prosecution that after the fardbeyan he had put his signature before the Daroga, which is Ext. 1/1. He has had sianed on the inquest report after it was prepared. His signature is Ext. 1/2. According to him Rajendra Prasad Mukhiya (P.W. 10) had also signed on the fardbeyan and inquest report which are Exts. 1/3 and 1/4. In his cross-examination on behalf of the defence, he has said that after reaching the hospital he had gone to bring medicine and Daroga had not recorded her statement before him and Mukhiya. His evidence shows that Kumbhiya was burnt and they had taken her to Sitamarhi hospital for medical treatment and she was alive in the Hospital. 5. P.W. 11 Ashok Kumar is the I.O. of the case. His evidence shows that Kumbhiya was burnt and they had taken her to Sitamarhi hospital for medical treatment and she was alive in the Hospital. 5. P.W. 11 Ashok Kumar is the I.O. of the case. He has said that Bharat Prasad had stated before him that the husband of the deceased was not there and she had told that her Bhaisur Srinath, finding her alone in the house, asked her for sexual relation and on her refusal he poured kerosene oil on her and put fire. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of his (Bharat Prasad) signatures Ext. 1/1 on fardbeyan and Ext. 1/2 on the inquest report, it appears that during his evidence in court he has changed some of his statements to help the accused. P.W. 10 Rajendra Prasad has stated that he had reached Sadar Hospital at about 10 to 11 O clock in the night. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution. But the evidence of PW. 8 Bharat Prasad clearly shows that this witness P.W. 10 Rajendra Prasad was present at the house of the informant and Bharat Prasad and this witness had taken the informant on a jeep to the Sitamarhi Sadar Hospital for her medical treatment. 6. According to P.W. 1 Janak Prasad he had seen that wife of Manoj was under fire. Further according to him the Daroga had come at the P.O. and seized cloths of deceased, bed-sheet, pillow etc. and prepared seizure list before him and he had put his signature (Ext. 1) on it. The seizure list shows that the Daroga had sezed piece of burnt sari of the deceased, half burnt bed sheet, burnt pillow, burnt gunny bag from the room and verandah of the house of the deceased. P.W. 3 Geeta Devi has also made statement to the effect that she had seen Kumbhiya Devi burning. 7. P.W. 11 I.O. of the case had found two rooms in the house, out of which one room was used for cooking food and in the another room the deceased was burnt and in that room there was a palang and below the palang there was half burnt pillow and gunny bag. He had also found burnt cloth, pillow, bed-sheet, a T.V. on table, smell of kerosene oil and one leg of the palang burnt. He had also found burnt cloth, pillow, bed-sheet, a T.V. on table, smell of kerosene oil and one leg of the palang burnt. He had seized the burnt articles at the place of occurrence before the witnesses and prepared the seizure list (Ext. 4). There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. The evi- dence of I.O. proves the place and manner of occurrence. 8. P.W. 13 is Shailesh Sharma, a Sub Inspector of Police, who had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Kumbhiya Devi (deceased) at 9 O clock in the night in the emergency ward of Sitamarhi Sadar Hos- pital. He has stated that after recording the statement, he had read it over to her and she had put her thumb impression on it. He (P.W. 13) has also said that he had recorded the fardbeyan before Dr. B. Prasad, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi and Bharat Prasad and Mukhiya Rajendra Prasad. Ext. 1/5 is signature of Dr. B. Prasad, Ext. 1/1 is signature of Bharat Prasad and Ext. 1/3 is signature of Rajendra Pd. Mukhiya on the fardbeyan (Ext. 6). According to him he had recorded her statement after finding her mentally fit to make statement. 9. It was argued by the learned law- yer for the appellant that the doctor has not given certificate of mental fitness of The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was that there are different modes of recording and making of dying declaration and in the present case the doctor has specifically stated in his evidence that he found her mentally fit to make statement and the statement was recorded by S.I., S. Sharma in his presence. It was also submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that in the circumstances of the present case the specific certificate of the doctor is not required. According to Section 323 of the Evidence Act, statements written or verbal made by a person who is dead is relevant when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. According to Section 323 of the Evidence Act, statements written or verbal made by a person who is dead is relevant when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. It has been held by a Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 (6) Supreme Court Cases 710, that the court must decide that the declarant was in a fit state of mind to make the declaration but where the eye witnesses evidence to that effect was available, mere absence of doctors certification as to the fitness of the declarants state of mind would not ipso facto render the dying declaration unacceptable. In the present case evidence of the doctor and P.W. 13 who had recorded the fardbeyan of Kumbhiya Devi and the facts and circumstances of the case clearly show that Kumbhiya Devi was mentally fit to make statement when her fardbeyan was recorded in the hospital. The fact that the occurrence had taken place at 7.30 P.M. and the informant was taken to the Sitamarhi Hospital by jeep where her fardbeyan was recorded at about 9.00 P.M. i.e. only after about one and half hours of the occurrence, clearly shows that the fardbeyan was recorded at the earliest possible time and there was no delay in it. Ext. 5 is Bed Head Ticket of deceased kumbhiya Devi which shows the time of admission in the hospital as 8.15 P.M. on 25.10.95. The Bed Head Ticket also shows that the doctor had given Advice for treatment at 8.30 P.M. and given further advice for treatment at 11 P.M. This clearly shows that Kumbhiya Devi was alive during that period. 10. The above evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the fardbeyan of the informant (deceased) and the facts and circumstances of the case prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused appellant Srinath Prasad had tried to establish sexual relation with the deceased Kumbhiya Devi and on her refusal to do so he had poured kerosene oil on her and put fire in her body as a result of which she sustained severe burn injuries and she died during her medical treatment. There is no merit in this Criminal Appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. There is no merit in this Criminal Appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. S.N.Jha, J. 11 I agree.