P.Sathasivam, J.: The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No.147 of 2000 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. He was charged to an offence punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C. and after trial, the learned Sessions Judge found him guilty for the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder: (a) The deceased, by name, was a resident of Oottupettai near Coonoor and she was married to one Govindarajan about seven years ago. Since the said Govindarajan had undergone family planning operation, she parted with his company and returned to her parent’s house at Coonoor. About six months prior to the occurrence, she came to Mettupalayam and by doing cooli work, she was staying with her relatives. While so, she fell in love with one Paramasivam (accused) and married him and was living in Thilakavathi’s (P.W.1) house. Paramasivam was a drunkard and used to scold his wife, Rani. There were frequent quarrels between them. P.W.1 and P.W.4 advised them not to quarrel with each other. On 26.12.1998, at about 10.30 p.m. the accused Paramasivam, in a drunken mood, came to his house and had a quarrel with his wife Rani and finally, poured kerosene on Rani and set her fire and Rani sustained burn injuries all over her body. She came out with the burn injuries. P.W.1 saw Rani with burn injuries, with the help of burning street light. P.W.1 also saw the accused with burn injuries. Rani informed P.W.1 that her husband poured kerosene on her and set her fire and rushed to the hospital by engaging an auto-rickshaw of P.W.3. The accused left the scene. (b) On admission of the deceased Rani at the Government hospital, Mettupalayam, the hospital authorities intimated the same to the police. On receipt of the information from the hospital authorities, the Head Constable attached to Mettupalayam Police Station visited the hospital and recorded the statement of Rani, Ex.P.14 and returned to the police station at 2.00 hours on 27.12.1998, and registered a case in Crime No.608 of 1998 under Sec.307, I.P.C. He prepared printed F.I.R. Ex.P.15 and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court and higher officials for taking further action. In the meantime, the accused went to the Government hospital, Mettupalayam along with P.W.2 and took treatment for his burn injuries from P.W.13 Doctor. In the meantime, the accused went to the Government hospital, Mettupalayam along with P.W.2 and took treatment for his burn injuries from P.W.13 Doctor. The injured Rani was referred by P.W.13 to C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore for further treatment. P.W.8 admitted her in the C.M.C.Hospital, Coimbatore as in-patient and issued Ex.P.5 Accident Register Extract. (c) On receipt of F.I.R., P.W.14 Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. on 27.12.1998 and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.6 in the presence of P.W.9 Saravana Kumar and one Shanmugam. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P.16. At about 7.15 a.m. he seized M.O.1 brown colour bottle containing kerosene; M.O.2 burnt blouse piece; M.O.3 mat; M.O.4 series burn match sticks; M.O.5 match box and M.O.6 burnt saree under Mahazar Ex.P.7 in the presence of the same witnesses. He also obtained statements from P.W.1, P.W.2, Raju, Augustin, Abubacker (P.W.4), Murugan, etc. He went to C.M.C.Hospital at Coimbatore and obtained statement Ex.P.17 from Rani. He also obtained statement from the accused Paramasivam who was taking treatment at the Government hospital, Mettupalayam for his burn injuries. P.W.11 doctor gave requisition to P.W.10 Judicial Magistrate to record dying declaration of Rani; on 27.12.1998 at 4.05 a.m. On that basis, P.W.10 went to C.M.C.Hospital, Coimbatore at 4.15 a.m., and found that Rani was conscious. P.W.11 Doctor certified that Rani was conscious. Then P.W.10 recorded the dying declaration of Rani. P.W.10 read over the statement made by Rani and she accepted the same to be correct. P.W.10 obtained the impression of her left big toe in the dying declaration, since she suffered burn injuries in both her hands. Ex.P.8 is the dying declaration and other related proceedings. (d) P.W.14 received intimation Ex.P.1 from P.W.6 at 5.30 a.m. on 30.12.1998 stating that the injured Rani succumbed to the burn injuries at 11.30 p.m. on 29.12.1998 at C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore. On receipt of the same, he altered the offence into one under Sec.302 and prepared altered F.I.R. Ex.P.18 and sent the same to Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam. In the next morning he proceeded to C.M.C. Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Rani in the presence of Palanisamy, Samburnam, Sridhar, Gopalakrishnan and P.W.1 between 7.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. and prepared Ex.P.19 inquest report. The body was sent for post-mortem along with Ex.P.9 requisition. In the next morning he proceeded to C.M.C. Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Rani in the presence of Palanisamy, Samburnam, Sridhar, Gopalakrishnan and P.W.1 between 7.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. and prepared Ex.P.19 inquest report. The body was sent for post-mortem along with Ex.P.9 requisition. On receipt of requisition, P.W.12 Doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Rani and issued Ex.P.10 Post-mortem Certificate. P.W.12 was of the opinion that the deceased died of burn injuries and their complications. (e) On 31.12.1998, P.W.14 enquired Dr.Karthikeyan (P.W.12) and obtained post-mortem certificate Ex.P.10. He examined the Head Constable Mani and also P.W.4, obtained their statements. At 10.30 a.m. on 13.1.1999, he arrested the accused, who was taking treatment of Government hospital, Mettupalayam and produced him before the Court for judicial custody. He examined P.W.8 Dr.Ganesh Babu, P.W.13 Dr.Mathew and P.W.6 Dr.Shanmugavelusamy and obtained their statements. He arranged for sending the material objects for chemical analysis. Ex.P.11 is the Chemical Analyst’s report. He also enquired T.N.E.B. Lineman Sundaram P.W.5 on 30.4.1999 and after completion of investigation, he filed a charge-sheet against the accused under Sec.302, I.P.C. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14, marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and also produced M.Os.1 to 6. When the accused was questioned with reference to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence, he denied the same and he has not examined any witness on his side. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, accepted the case of prosecution and found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C. and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment; hence the present appeal. 5. Heard Mr.C.Deivasigamani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, accepted the case of prosecution and found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C. and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment; hence the present appeal. 5. Heard Mr.C.Deivasigamani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 6. After taking us through relevant materials, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions: (i) In view of inconsistency between the statement by Rani before the Head Constable (not examined) and the dying declaration before the Judicial Magistrate (P.W.7), the conviction based on the same cannot be sustained; (ii) The non-examination of Head Constable, who was the author of Exs.P.14 and P.15, creates a doubt in the case of prosecution; (iii) The entire prosecution case is concocted one; and (iv) In the absence of specific evidence relating to the place of occurrence by the prosecution witnesses, the ultimate conclusion of the trial Judge, accepting the case of prosecution cannot be sustained. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the statements made by the deceased at the earliest point of time to P.W.1, to the Head Constable, which was recorded as F.I.R. Ex.P.14 and her statement before the Judicial Magistrate (P.W.7) are one and the same and there is no inconsistency as claimed. He further contended that the learned trial Judge rightly believed the evidence of P.W.7, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased and accepted the case of prosecution. He also contended that inasmuch as the accused also sustained burn injuries, as evident from the Accident Register extract Ex.P.13, the presence of accused at the scene of occurrence is very well proved and all the material aspects have been rightly considered and accepted by the learned trial Judge and there is no ground for interference. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, evidence on record, other materials and the judgment of the trial Court. 9. Among the contentions, first let us consider the place of occurrence and whether the prosecution has specified the actual place of occurrence by placing acceptable evidence. In the earliest statement (Ex.P.14) made by the deceased to the Head Constable, it is specifically stated by her that after love affairs/relationship with Paramasivam, both of them resided in the house of Thilakavathi (P.W.1) at Annur Road. In the earliest statement (Ex.P.14) made by the deceased to the Head Constable, it is specifically stated by her that after love affairs/relationship with Paramasivam, both of them resided in the house of Thilakavathi (P.W.1) at Annur Road. P.W.1, who is the owner of a house, wherein the accused and the deceased were residing, has specifically stated that she is living near Jeeva Coffee House, Annur Road, Mettupalayam. It is not in dispute that she is the land lady of the house wherein the accused and the deceased were living. It is also her evidence that both of them were living in her house for the past one year and eight months and they used to quarrel with each other often. It is her evidence that she used to pacify them and give advice. It is also her evidence that she is living adjacent to the house where the accused and the deceased lived. Ex.P.16 rough sketch also shows that the house of Thilakavathi (P.W.1) is adjacent to the house, wherein the accused and the deceased lived. P.W.4, by name, Abubacker is a resident of Nadoor, Mettupalayam. He knows both the accused and the deceased. He specifically stated that both the accused and the deceased were living near Jeeva Coffee House, Annur Road. He also stated that at the time of occurrence, except the accused and the deceased, no one was there. In Ex.P.6, Observation Mahazar, there is a specific reference to door No.3/327, which is a house situate near Coffee House, Annur Road, Nadoor, Mettupalayam. A reference to the same address has been made in Ex.P.7 mahazar and in Ex.P.8 also there is a reference to coffee house stating that the deceased Rani and the accused were residing next to the same. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and Exs.P.6, P.7 and P.8 specifically refer to the place of occurrence, namely, a house near Jeeva Coffee House and we are satisfied that there is no ambiguity in describing the place of occurrence on the side of prosecution; accordingly, we reject the said contention. 10. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and Exs.P.6, P.7 and P.8 specifically refer to the place of occurrence, namely, a house near Jeeva Coffee House and we are satisfied that there is no ambiguity in describing the place of occurrence on the side of prosecution; accordingly, we reject the said contention. 10. Coming to the next contention, namely, inconsistent declarations made by the deceased, one before the Head Constable attached to Mettupalayam Police Station and another to Judicial Magistrate (P.W.6), before going into the factual details with regard to the said claim, it is useful to refer the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding permissibility and reliance on the dying declaration. In the case of P.V.Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka, (2003) S.C.C. (Crl.) 1679, the Honourable Supreme Court had an occasion to consider similar question, namely, whether dying declaration recorded by a Police Official is admissible. The following conclusion on which dying declaration is admissible in evidence is relevant. 12. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, or prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot from the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under as indicated in Paniben v. State of Gujarat, (1992)2 S.C.C.474. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under as indicated in Paniben v. State of Gujarat, (1992)2 S.C.C.474. (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration; (ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration; (iii) The Court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration; (iv) Where a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence; (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected; (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot from the basis of conviction; (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected; (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth; (ix) Normally, the Court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eye-witnesses said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail; (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon; and (xi) Where there are more than one statements in the nature of dying declaration, the one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of the dying declaration could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted. In the light of the above principles, the admissibility of the dying declaration in the instant case has to be considered. Of course, if the plurality of the dying declaration could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted. In the light of the above principles, the admissibility of the dying declaration in the instant case has to be considered. As observed by their Lordships, the dying declaration only being a piece of untested evidence, it must, like any other evidence, satisfy the Court that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth and that it is absolutely safe to act upon it. If, after careful scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration. 11. In our case, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that on sustaining burn injuries at the hands of her husband/accused, the deceased ran out of her house and by fetching an auto-rickshaw, she got her admitted in the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam. The auto-rickshaw driver was examined as P.W.3. He deposed before the Court that 12 years prior to his evidence, around 10.45 p.m. on 26.12.1998, the deceased came and met him with burn injuries and requested to take her to hospital. He also deposed that she had stated that her husband poured kerosene on her and set her fire, due to which she sustained burn injuries. Immediately on her admission at the Government hospital, Mettupalayam, she informed the doctor (P.W.13). The hospital authorities have informed the same to the police and referred the injured Rani to C.M.C Hospital for further treatment. This is evident from Ex.P.11. Ex.P.12 shows that the Duty Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Mettupalayam sent an intimation to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam to the effect that the injured sustained 80% burns and was referred to C.M.C.Hospital, Coimbatore for further treatment. While she was in Government Hospital, Mettupalayam she made a statement under Ex.P.14 to the Head Constable attached to Mettupalayam Police Station, which was recorded as First Information Report. While she was in Government Hospital, Mettupalayam she made a statement under Ex.P.14 to the Head Constable attached to Mettupalayam Police Station, which was recorded as First Information Report. In the said statement she narrated about her earlier marriage, which had taken place seven years ago with one Govindarajan, her separation because of the fact that the said Govindarajan underwent family planning operation, thereafter her stay at Mettupalayam by doing cooli work, having relationship with the accused Paramasivam, after marriage her living with him in the house of P.W.1 near Jeeva Coffee House, Annur Road, Mettupalayam, the conduct and character of her husband Paramasivam, accused, frequent quarrels and pouring kerosene on her at 10.30 p.m. on 26.12.1998. The said statement was recorded by the Head Constable attached to Mettupalayam Police Station and treated as complaint (Ex.P.14). Based on the same, Express F.I.R. was prepared under Ex.P.15. 12. Now, let us consider the other declaration made by the deceased between 4.15 a.m. and 5.10 a.m. on 27.12.1998, while taking treatment at C.M.C.Hospital, Coimbatore, which was recorded by Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore (P.W.10). It is seen from the evidence of P.W.10 that he received intimation from the C.M.C. Hospital at 4.05 a.m. on 27.12.1998 and at about 4.15 a.m. he reached the hospital along with his Assistant. He cautioned the deceased before recording her statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. and he satisfied himself that the deceased was fully conscious and in a position to make a statement. P.W.11 Doctor, also certified that the deceased was in a conscious state of mind and thereafter, P.W.10 recorded her statement between 4.15 a.m. to 5.10 a.m. on 27.12.1998. In her statement (Ex.P.8) though more in detail she has referred to her first marriage with Govindarajan, separation from him; living for some time with her parents at Mettupalayam, while working in a mill, her love affairs with the accused Paramasivam, her marriage with him (accused), after marriage her stay with the accused in the house of Thilakavathi (P.W.1) near Jeeva Coffee House and his pouring kerosene on her body at 10.30 p.m. on 26.12.1998. A perusal of her statement under Ex.P.8 to P.W.10 and her earlier statement Ex.P.14 before the Head Constable show that there is no inconsistency on material aspects. A perusal of her statement under Ex.P.8 to P.W.10 and her earlier statement Ex.P.14 before the Head Constable show that there is no inconsistency on material aspects. No doubt, in Ex.P.14, which was recorded at 2.00 a.m. on 27.12.1998 at the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam it is stated that in the said statement she put her left thumb impression. On the other hand, in Ex.P.8 statement before P.W.10 Judicial Magistrate, it is stated that her left big toe impression was obtained, for which P.W.10 has explained that since she sustained burn injuries on both her hands, he obtained her left big toe impression. We are of the view that the said aspect/discrepancy would not affect the case of prosecution. Even otherwise, Ex.P.14, was recorded at 2.00 hours on 27.12.1998 and Ex.P.8, was recorded between at 4.15 hours and 5.10 hours on the same date. In the light of the time lag and of the fact that even at the time of admission in the hospital at Mettupalayam she sustained 80% burn injuries, due to subsequent developments, she might not have been in a position to use her hands for affixing impression on her statement in Ex.P.8. In the light of the statement of P.W.10 regarding her injuries on both her hands, as said earlier, the said discrepancy has not affected the case of prosecution as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant. On the other hand, the consistent fact that her husband poured kerosene at 10.30 p.m. on 26.12.1998 finds a place in all the declarations including her earliest statement to P.W.1. P.W.1 in her chief examination has stated that, It is also clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that on hearing noise of the deceased Rani, P.W.1 went out of her house and with the help of street light which was burning she noticed burn injuries on the body of the deceased and when questioned, the deceased has stated that it was her husband, who poured kerosene. The statement of P.W.1 that she was able to notice the burn injuries with the help of street light has been corroborated by P.W.5 who is a lineman working in T.N.E.B., Mettupalayam. According to P.W.5, it was he who put on/off the street lights on 26.12.1998 and all the street lights in Nadoor were burning between 6.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. and there was no power-cut near Jeeva Coffee House on 26.12.1998. According to P.W.5, it was he who put on/off the street lights on 26.12.1998 and all the street lights in Nadoor were burning between 6.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. and there was no power-cut near Jeeva Coffee House on 26.12.1998. There is no reason to disbelieve his statement. 13. With regard to non-examination of Head Constable who recorded Ex.P.14 and prepared Ex.P.15, it is brought to the notice of the Court that at the time of trial, the said Head Constable was hospitalised due to his ailment and he could not be examined for the said reason. The learned trial Judge rightly accepted the said explanation and we also concur with him. Further, merely because the head constable was not examined, in the light of evidence of Investigating Officer P.W.14 explaining the contents of Exs.P.14 and P.15, we are of the view that non-examination of head constable is not a fatal to the prosecution case. 14. Another important aspect to be noted is that admittedly the accused sustained burn injuries when he poured kerosene on the deceased. Evidence of P.W.2, a resident of Muniappan Koil Street, Nadoor, Mettupalayam supports the case of prosecution. In his evidence he has stated that while he was returning after viewing second show cinema in Subham theatre, he saw the accused running near Subham theatre and he noticed burn injuries on the hands of the accused. The copy of Accident Register Extract - Ex.P.13 issued by the Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam clearly shows that the accused sustained burn injuries. No doubt, before the doctor, the accused has stated that he sustained burns while he was trying to put off fire on his wife’s body at 10.30 p.m. on 26.12.1998 at his house. The total area of burns as certified by the doctor is 18%. It is also seen from the evidence of Investigating Officer P.W.14 that the accused was arrested on 10.30 a.m. on 13.1.1999 while he was taking treatment at the Government hospital, Mettupalayam. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the burns sustained by the accused and his statement as noted in Ex.P.13 corroborated by P.W.2 amply prove the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the burns sustained by the accused and his statement as noted in Ex.P.13 corroborated by P.W.2 amply prove the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence. 15.Though the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the ambulance driver, who brought the injured from Government hospital, Mettupalayam to C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore has not been examined and log book relating to the ambulance not produced, in the light of the above mentioned materials in the form of oral and documentary evidence, we are of the view that the non-examination of ambulance driver is not a fatal to the case of prosecution. 16. In the light of what is stated above, we are satisfied that the prosecution has established its case by placing acceptable legal evidence and all those materials were considered and accepted by the learned trial Judge. We are in agreement with the said conclusion and do not find any error, infirmity or any valid ground for interference. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.