BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) CASE of the Prosecution is that marriage between the appellant/accused and the deceased took place three months before the death of deceased. The couple lived amicably for only one month. The mother of the accused died soon after the marriage of accused with the deceased. The accused cultivated a belief that the arrival of deceased in his home was a bad Women, which resulted in the death of his mother. Therefore the accused started harassing her. Finally on 19. 6. 1999, the accused set fire to her and later she died on 22. 7. 1999 while undergoing treatment in government Hospital, Adilabad. ( 2 ) ON the basis of these allegations, the accused was charged under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also fined with Rs. 1,000/-, In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A of IPC. Hence this appeal. ( 3 ) P. W. 1 is the brother of deceased, who gave report Ex. P-1 to the police on 20. 6. 1999. PW. 2 is father of the deceased, pw3 is the mother of deceased, PW4 is the sister of deceased, PW6 is another brother of the deceased, PW5 is a neighbour, pw 7 is the Magistrate who recorded dying declaration in Ex. P7, PW8- is a panch witness to scene of offence, PW9 is an executive Magistrate, who had also recorded a dying declaration in Ex. P9, PW10 is a much witness to inquest, PW 11 is the medical Officer who conducted post-mortem, pw12 is the Tahsildar who conducted inquest, PW13 is Sub-Inspector of Police, pw14 is another doctor who gave certificate regarding injuries caused to the accused andpws. 15 to 18 are Investigating Officers. ( 4 ) PW-1, who is the brother of deceased, stated that his sister (deceased) died 2 1/2 years before. He stated that 20 days after the marriage of deceased with the accused, the mother of the accused died and in June, 1999, the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. ( 4 ) PW-1, who is the brother of deceased, stated that his sister (deceased) died 2 1/2 years before. He stated that 20 days after the marriage of deceased with the accused, the mother of the accused died and in June, 1999, the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. On receiving information, he went to the government Hospital, Adilabad. When he asked the deceased about the occurrence, the deceased told him that the accused set fire to her by pouring kerosene. One month later, she died in hospital. Ex. P-1 was his report presented to the police. In the cross- examination, he stated that accused also received burn injuries on his hands. He denied a suggestion that deceased was having illicit contacts with others prior to her marriage. He also denied a suggestion that the marriage of deceased to the accused, was performed against her will. ( 5 ) PW-2 is the father of the deceased. He stated that 15 days after the marriage, the mother of accused died. He brought his daughter back to his house. Four days prior to the date of occurrence, he dropped his daughter at the house of accused and the accused, on the date of occurrence, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The accused after setting her on fire, ran away. On coming to know about the fact, he went to the Government Hospital, Jainoor. When he asked his daughter as to how the incident took place, the deceased told him that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. 40 days later, she died in the hospital. In his cross-examination, he stated that it was not true to say that his daughter had conceived prior to her marriage. He also denied the suggestion that the deceased was not interested in marrying the accused and the marriage had been performed against her wish. He also denied the suggestion that in order to obtain divorce from the accused, the deceased had herself committed suicide. ( 6 ) PW-3 is the mother of the deceased, She also stated that after coming to know about the incident, she questioned the deceased, who informed her that the accused had poured kerosene on her, set her on fire and had ran away. ( 6 ) PW-3 is the mother of the deceased, She also stated that after coming to know about the incident, she questioned the deceased, who informed her that the accused had poured kerosene on her, set her on fire and had ran away. Suggestions were put to her also that it was a case of suicide because the deceased was married to accused against her wish. These suggestions were however denied. PW-4 is the sister of deceased. She also stated that the deceased had told her that she was set on fire by her husband by pouring kerosene on her person. PW-5 is a neighbour, who turned hostile. He accepted that he was a close neighbour to the accused. He stated that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased. At 5 a. m. , on the date of occurrence, when he had gone out of his house to answer calls of nature, he saw flames in the house of accused. He entered the house and found the deceased burning. The accused was trying to extinguish the fire. Number of people gathered there. He was told by the deceased that she herself poured kerosene on her body. In his cross- examination, he denied that whatever he had stated to the police in Ex. P-2 and Ex. P- 3 was correct or that he was deposing falsehood to help the accused. ( 7 ) PW-6 is another brother of the deceased. He stated that after he was informed of the incident, he went to the hospital, enquired from his sister about the occurrence and she told him that the accused had poured kerosene on her and had set her on fire. PW-8 is the witness to scene of occurrence. He turned hostile. Evidence of PWs. 7 and 9 shall be discussed separately as they relate to recording of dying declarations. ( 8 ) PW-10 is a witness to the inquest. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. He found following burn injuries on the dead body:"1. infront of the chest 5% 2. Lower part of the abdomen 10% 3. Complete right leg 18% 4. Left legs upto knee joint 5% 5. Burns over the neck 5% 6. Back of the chest 8% 7. Complete left hand 9% total 60% burns. "according to him, the cause of death was septicemia due to bums. He exhibited Ex. infront of the chest 5% 2. Lower part of the abdomen 10% 3. Complete right leg 18% 4. Left legs upto knee joint 5% 5. Burns over the neck 5% 6. Back of the chest 8% 7. Complete left hand 9% total 60% burns. "according to him, the cause of death was septicemia due to bums. He exhibited Ex. P 11 the autopsy report. He also stated that in case of burn injuries to the extent of 60% or less, death can occur even after 35 to 45 days due to septicemia even after undergoing treatment. In his cross-examination, he stated that the severity of the injuries would show that they were only on one side of the body. It may or may not be possible for a person to receive such injuries if the person poured kerosene on her body by herself. Septicemia may occur three days after receiving burn injuries. From postmortem, he could not say whether the burn injuries were superficial or not. All the internal organs of the deceased were normal. It was not true to say that the deceased would have survived had she been shifted at proper time to proper hospital for medical aid. ( 9 ) PW-12 conducted inquest over the dead body. PW-13 is Sub-Inspector of police, who gave requisition to the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Adilabad to record the dying declaration of the deceased,who was undergoing treatment in the Government hospital. Requisition was sent through a police Constable on 19. 6. 1999 at 6 p. m. PW-14 is the Doctor, who examined the accused on 25. 6. 1999. On examination, he found scars due to burns. The age of the scars was 7 or 8 days. The burns were seen over the right thumb, right hand, right forehand, over the dorsum of left thumb, little finger, over the knuckles of the remaining three left fingers. Ex. P-14 was the wound certificate. Other witnesses are the investigating Officers. ( 10 ) ALL the witnesses, who have been produced and whose evidence has been discussed hereinabove, are not eye-witnesses. All the witnesses who are related to the deceased and whose evidence has been discussed hereinabove, have stated that the deceased told them that accused had poured kerosene on her and had burnt her. So, there are five oral dying declarations. All the witnesses who are related to the deceased and whose evidence has been discussed hereinabove, have stated that the deceased told them that accused had poured kerosene on her and had burnt her. So, there are five oral dying declarations. There are two recorded dying declarations; one recorded by PW-7 the Judicial Magistrate and another by PW-9, and Executive magistrate. The dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate i. e. , PW-7 is Ex. P6. The Magistrate stated in his statement that on receiving Ex. P-4, he visited the hospital to record the dying declaration of deceased. The deceased was identified by dr. Anil Kumar. He put formal questions to the deceased to know whether she was fit to make a statement. The questions were put by him to the deceased through Smt. Ita bai, Aya working in the hospital. The deceased could only speak in Marathi language. Ita Bai knew Marathi. The patient was in a fit condition to give statement. Ex. P-5 was the endorsement made by the medical Officer before recording the statement. Ex. P-6 was the statement of the deceased and Ex. P-7 was the certification made by the Medical Officer after recording the dying declaration. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not administer oath to ita Bai, whose assistance he took in recording the statement of deceased. He did not know marathi. The relevant portions from the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, are reproduced hereunder:"1. What is your name? rajabai. 2. Which is your village? jangaon. 3. What is your father? agriculturist. 4. What is your husband s name? prabhu. 5. What is your husband? agriculturist, 6. Have you got children? i have no children. 7. What is your age? i do not know. 8. Where are you now? i am in hospital. 9. Do you know I am Magistrate? yes. I know. ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "i put questions in Telugu and aya translated the same in Marathi and answer given by declarant in Marathi by her in Telugu. Q. How you received injuries? my husband burnt me. He woke me up at 5. 00 a. m. , and poured kerosene on me and lit fire in the kitchen room. At that time nobody was in my house. Q. How you received injuries? my husband burnt me. He woke me up at 5. 00 a. m. , and poured kerosene on me and lit fire in the kitchen room. At that time nobody was in my house. Q. Can you say why kerosene was poured on you and set ablaze? daily my husband and myself used to quarrel. He used to harass me on the ground that I am responsible for the death of my mother-in-law. But on that day he did not say anything and we did not quarrel. Q. Do you want to say any more? nothing but my husband is responsible for this situation. My father-in-law was present when I was ablazed but he did not say anything. "the Magistrate stated that he started recording of dying declaration at 6. 40 p. m. , and completed by 7. 30 p. m. ( 11 ) PW. 9 is the Mandal Revenue officer. On 19. 6. 1999 he recorded the statement of the deceased, which is Ex. P-9. It reads as under :"on the day of 19. 6. 1999 morning 5. 00 hrs while I was sleeping, my husband by name prabhu poured kerosene on me and set fire with match box. My marriage took place three months back. My parents village is vadoni. I gave this statement when I am in conscious state of mind. He told me that even before the marriage I suffered an abortion. " ( 12 ) IN the light of this evidence, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that all the dying declarations have been made allegedly by the deceased, to the persons, who were closely related to her. They include her parents, brothers and sister therefore, it will not be safe to rely on their evidence more so, when the deceased had died 40 days after the incident. She would have certainly come into contact with many people in the hospital and it was nobody s case that she was not conscious for most of the period during her hospitalization. Therefore, in the absence of any independent witnesses, the oral dying declarations to which the close relatives of deceased are witnesses, may not be relied upon. She would have certainly come into contact with many people in the hospital and it was nobody s case that she was not conscious for most of the period during her hospitalization. Therefore, in the absence of any independent witnesses, the oral dying declarations to which the close relatives of deceased are witnesses, may not be relied upon. ( 13 ) COMING to the dying declarations recorded by the two Magistrates, the learned senior Counsel attacked the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial magistrate on the ground that the Magistrate admittedly did not know the language in which the declaration had been made by the deceased and it was translated to him by one Ita Bai, who was Aya in the hospital. This Aya was not examined and therefore one cannot be sure whether the statement recorded by the Magistrate was the true account of what the deceased had said. In the absence of any other evidence, it may not be safe to rely on this dying declaration. Ex. P-9, the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, is attacked by the counsel for defence on the ground that no time has been given by PW-9 as to when he recorded the statement. It also does not say that any opinion of any doctor was taken before recording of the statement, about the fitness of the deceased to make a statement. On the other hand, this witness recorded the statement of deceased with regard to her fitness, as he recorded, "i gave the statement when I am in conscious state of mind". The learned Counsel for appellant submits that neither the Magistrate has put questions to the deceased to satisfy himself that she was in a fit condition to make a statement nor has he obtained any certificate from the doctor attending on the deceased that the deceased was in a fit condition to make a statement. ( 14 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor submits that because of relationship of the deceased with the witnesses before whom the oral dying declarations were made, the same cannot be rejected. After all in such an incident, only the close relatives of the patient would be around her and normally she would have spoken only to her close relations about the incident therefore, because they were relatives, the testimony of witnesses cannot be rejected. After all in such an incident, only the close relatives of the patient would be around her and normally she would have spoken only to her close relations about the incident therefore, because they were relatives, the testimony of witnesses cannot be rejected. He further contended that even if the dying declaration recorded by the Mandal revenue Officer is eschewed from evidence on the grounds mentioned by the learned counsel for defence, even then, the oral dying declarations and the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate were sufficient to convict the accused. He submits that PW-7 is a Judicial Magistrate, who had satisfied that Ita Bai knew marathi and was translating truly what had been stated by the deceased therefore, there was no necessity to bring Ita Bai as a witness. ( 15 ) COUNSEL for appellant has relied on a judgment reported in State of A. P. v. Shaik main, 2004 (6) SCC 34. In our view, this judgment takes care of the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. This was a case where the Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration, did not know urdu language, but he claimed that he understood the language. He had stated in his statement that the victim gave statement in Urdu, which he later translated into Telugu as understood by him. The High Court did not place reliance on such a dying declaration and the Supreme Court dealt with it in the following terms:"that apart, the High Court noticed the fact that the Magistrate who had recorded the statement as per Ext. P-2 did not know urdu language; he claimed only to understand the same. He also stated in his evidence that the victim gave a statement in urdu language which he later translated into Telugu as understood by him. From the material on record, the High Court noticed the fact that his efficiency of the language was not such that he could translate the statement of the deceased into telugu language correctly. In that background, the High Court found it not safe to place reliance on Ext. P-2. We have examined the contents of Ext. P-2 as also the entry made in the accident register maintained by the hospital. There being direct conflict in regard to the role played by the accused, we think the benefit of doubt should go to the accused, as held by the High court. P-2. We have examined the contents of Ext. P-2 as also the entry made in the accident register maintained by the hospital. There being direct conflict in regard to the role played by the accused, we think the benefit of doubt should go to the accused, as held by the High court. In the said view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. " ( 16 ) NOW coming to the case in hand, the Magistrate did not know Marathi language in which the victim spoke. She in fact spoke to Aya in the hospital and Aya translated it to the Magistrate. One is not sure about the proficiency of Aya in Marathi and Telugu into which she translated it to the Magistrate. Therefore, while recording the dying declarations, there were two versions; one spoken by the victim in Marathi and the second spoken in Telugu by the aya. The proficiency of this Aya in the language was not tested, as she was not presented as a witness before the Trial Court. Even otherwise, dying declaration is a weapon, which can be used by the prosecution against an accused without accused having any weapon to defend, but it has been accepted that dying declarations can be the basis for conviction on a premise that a dying person would tell the truth. There is no weapon in the armory of defence available, to attack a dying declaration because, a person who made the statement, cannot even be cross-examined. Therefore, while relying on dying declarations for the purpose of conviction, one has to be over-cautious and the Court should be in a position to know as to what exactly the dying person stated regarding the reasons and circumstances of his/her death. In a situation where the Magistrate did not know the language, which was spoken by the victim and which was translated by an aya who was not examined in Court, it would be dangerous to rely on such a statement. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate cannot be, on its own, taken into consideration for the purpose of convicting the accused/appellant. ( 17 ) COMING to the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, we feel that it will be again dangerous to rely on this dying declaration alone. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate cannot be, on its own, taken into consideration for the purpose of convicting the accused/appellant. ( 17 ) COMING to the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, we feel that it will be again dangerous to rely on this dying declaration alone. He did not put any questions to the deceased in order to assure himself that the deceased was in a fit condition to make a statement. He did not even record the time when he recorded the dying declaration. He did not obtain the opinion of the doctor attending on the deceased, with regard to the fitness of the victim to make a statement. But even after discarding both these dying declarations; one recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and another recorded by the Executive Magistrate, there are still five oral dying declarations about which PWs. l to 4 and 6 have spoken. The only attack to their declarations is that they were closely related to the deceased. We do not find that to be a ground for discarding and disbelieving these dying declarations. In our view, these prosecution witnesses being the close relations of the deceased, would not disqualify them as witnesses in the case. There is nothing on record which would suggest that those oral dying declarations should be discarded. On the other hand, the statements made by these witnesses are corroborated by other factors. First and foremost being the fact that the accused absconded after the incident and he was only arrested on 25. 6. 1999. Secondly, the accused himself had received burn injuries. The incident had occurred at 5 a. m. Only the deceased and her husband i. e. , accused were present in the house, although accused in his statement under section 313 Cr. PC stated that when he reached the house, the deceased was already burning. ( 18 ) FOR these reasons, we do not find merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.