Judgment :- S.Ashok Kumar, J. The appellant who is the sole accused was tried and convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life by the Learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The deceased was married to Rajendran, P.W.4 about Three years prior to the occurrence i.e., on 5.7.1990. When P.W.1, the mother of the deceased came to invite the deceased and her husband P.W.4 for "Thalai Diwali", P.W.4 did not accompany her and the deceased alone went to her mother's house. At that time though P.W.4 informed that he would come later to join her, he did not go there. Thereafter the deceased did not return to the matrimonial house and stayed in her mother's house for Two years. P.W.1, mother of the deceased lodged a complaint, Ex.P.1 on 13.3.1991 in the Sembanarkoil Police Station alleging dowry harassment by P.W.4, his parents and brother. P.W.4, husband of the deceased filed a divorce petition in O.P.no.28 of 1991 against the deceased in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Myladuthurai and P.W.20, Vijayakumar appeared for the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.4 made an endorsement that he and his wife have compromised and withdrew the divorce petition. On 1.8.1991 the deceased, her husband, PW.4 and villagers gave a petition Ex.P.12 to stop further action on the complaint of the deceased. Thereafter, 1 ½ months prior to the occurrence, a Panchayat was held in the presence of P.Ws 10 and 11 in which P.W.1, the mother of the deceased paid Rs.8,000/= to the accused and her family and thereafter the said complaint was withdrawn by the mother of the deceased and the deceased was sent to the matrimonial house about one and half months prior to the occurrence. The in-laws of the deceased and her husband were living in the same house. 3. On 17.9.1993, at about 10.30 pm., the accused is said to have poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. On the alarm raised by the deceased, the neighbours including P.W.2 came and put off the fire. P.W.4, husband of the deceased also tried to put off the fire and he also sustained burn injuries on his body. On the next day morning at about 5.20 a.m., P.W.4 got himself admitted in the Government Hospital at Mayiladuthurai and the Wound Certificate issued for him has been marked as Ex.P.10. P.W.4, husband of the deceased also tried to put off the fire and he also sustained burn injuries on his body. On the next day morning at about 5.20 a.m., P.W.4 got himself admitted in the Government Hospital at Mayiladuthurai and the Wound Certificate issued for him has been marked as Ex.P.10. On 18.9.1993, at about 6.00 a.m., P.W.15, the Head Constable, attached to Sembanarkoil Police Station received an anonymous phone call about the incident and he went to the place of occurrence with a taxi. When he enquired the deceased, she told him that the previous night at 10.30 pm., the accused poured kerosene and set her on fire. He took the deceased to the Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital. He sent intimation to the Police Station and served a memo given by the Medical Officer to P.W.8, the Judicial Magistrate. P.W.6, Dr.Vasantha Leela the then Medical Officer of Myladuthurai Government Hospital admitted the injured, questioned her about the cause for her burn injuries. The injured told her that she sustained injuries on the previous night at 11.00 pm., at the hands of her mother-in-law who poured kerosene and set fire. After giving her treatment, P.W.6 sent Ex.P.5 intimation to Judicial Magistrate to record Dying Declaration. The Wound Certificate issued by her is Ex.p.7. The Certificate issued by her in the Dying Declaration with regard to the fitness of the injured to give a statement (Dying Declaration) is Ex.P.6. P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Sembanarkoil Police Station received the message through Phone about the admission of the deceased at the Hospital, went there and recorded Ex.P.14, statement of the deceased and based on Ex.P.14, he registered a case in Cr.No.662/93 under Section 307 IPC. Ex.P.15 is the FIR. P.W.8, the Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai reached the Hospital at about 9.05 a.m., and recorded Ex.P.9, the Dying Declaration of the deceased. The Medical Officer who attended the injured certified that the injured was conscious and in a fit stage of mind to give a statement. Her Certificate is Ex.P.6. At 9.45 am., the injured died at the Hospital and the case was altered into one under Section of 302 IPC. 4. The Inspector of Police, Muthaiah Pillai (since deceased) conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at the Mortuary of the Hospital on 18.9.1993 between 11.30a.m., and 4.00pm., recorded the statements of the witnesses. The Inquest Report is Ex.P.23. 4. The Inspector of Police, Muthaiah Pillai (since deceased) conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at the Mortuary of the Hospital on 18.9.1993 between 11.30a.m., and 4.00pm., recorded the statements of the witnesses. The Inquest Report is Ex.P.23. He, thereafter visited the scene of occurrence and prepared a Mahazar Ex.P.3 and Sketch Ex.P.24. He also seized M.Os 1 to 5 from the place of occurrence under Mahazar Ex.P.4. He arrested the accused on 19.9.1993 at 5.pm., and remanded her to judicial custody. P.W.21, Dr.Kousalya, conducted Postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.21, Postmortem Certificate. The injuries noted by the Doctor are:- "Burns present over face, neck, chest, abdomen, back upper limbs and both lower limbs and back. Skin cuticle peeled off at various places all over the body, underlying tissue light red in colour. Skin sooty blackening present. Thorax well formed. Heart 150 gms. All chambers full of blood. Lungs, right 450 gms. Left 400 gms. Both congested. On section congested. Hyoid bone intact. Abdomen uniform. Stomach size normal. Contains 20 ml of straw coloured fluid. Mucosa congested. Intestines empty. Liver 900 gms. Congested spleen 90 cms. Congested kidneys each 100 gms. Congested Bladder empty. Uterus normal size. Cavity empty. Scalp hairs partially burnt. Skull normal. Brain 900 gms. Normal Postmortem completed at 6.10 pm., on 18.9.1993. Time of death 6 hours to 8 hours prior to postmortem examination. Opinion: The deceased would appear to have died of shock due to burns sustained" 5. After investigation, Muthia Pillai, Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for alleged offence under Section 302 IPC. 6. During trial, P.Ws 1 to 22 were examined as prosecution witnesses and Exs.P.1 to P.25 have been marked. M.Os 1 to 5 were also marked. No witness has been examined by the accused, nor any document was marked on behalf of the accused. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing as against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same either as not known or false and has further stated that there is prior enmity between herself and the husband of P.W.2 and therefore P.W.2 is giving false evidence. 7. 7. On the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam convicted the accused for alleged offence under Section 302 IPC and imposed imprisonment for life. Hence the appeal. 8. Before this court, the amicus curiae appointed by this court on behalf of the accused contended that there was enmity between the family members of P.W.2 (neighbour) and the family members of the accused and therefore P.W.2's evidence should not be relied upon, that the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate should not be relied upon since two ladies were present near the deceased when the Judicial Magistrate visited the Hospital for the purpose of recording the dying declaration and there is probability of the two ladies tutoring the deceased to implicate the accused/mother-in-law. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that there are Five Dying Declarations by the deceased: (i) When P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased immediately after the incident, when she questioned the deceased, the deceased told her that it was her mother-in-law, the accused, who poured kerosene and set fire on her; (ii) When P.W.12, Head Constable took a taxi to the place of occurrence to bring the injured to the Hospital she has informed him that her mother-in-law alone set her ablaze; (iii) When the deceased was taken to the Hospital, at the time of admission, the deceased had informed P.W.6 the Doctor that she was set on fire by her mother-in-law and the same has been recorded in the Wound Certificate Ex.P.7. (iv) P.W.16, Sub Inspector of Police, Sembanarkoil Police Station went to the Hospital at about 8.30 a.m., and recorded her statement which is marked as Ex.P.14 in which the deceased had told him that it was her mother-in-law who set her ablaze; (v) On the same day at 9.05 a.m., when the learned Judicial Magistrate, Myladuthurai recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, she has clearly mentioned about the incident and has told the Magistrate that it was her mother-in-law who poured kerosene and set her on fire. 9. Besides the written dying declarations recorded by the Doctor, Sub Inspector of Police and the Judicial Magistrate, there are oral dying declarations given to P.W.2, a local Villager and the Head Constable. 9. Besides the written dying declarations recorded by the Doctor, Sub Inspector of Police and the Judicial Magistrate, there are oral dying declarations given to P.W.2, a local Villager and the Head Constable. In all the dying declarations the deceased had categorically told that it was her mother-in-law who poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Village Administrative Officer has deposed that when he went to the place of occurrence at about 5.00 a.m., he saw the deceased was in an unconscious state. It is curious to note that the Village Administrative Officer has not made any arrangement for sending the injured to the Hospital or has taken any step to send a complaint to the Police authorities. Therefore, the statement of P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer that the injured was unconscious state cannot be relied upon because at the time of admission in the Hospital it is noted in the Accident Register that the accused was conscious and she herself told the Doctor as to how she sustained injuries and at the hands of whom. P.W 16, the Sub Inspector of Police has also recorded a statement based on which the FIR was registered. The learned Judicial Magistrate, P.W.8 just before recording the statement of the deceased has got the opinion of the Medical Officer that the injured was conscious and was in a fit state of mind to give statement and he has put some general questions and after informing her that he is a Magistrate he has recorded the statement of the deceased. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also obtained a opinion from the Doctor who has attended the deceased which is marked as Ex.P.6. From the facts stated above, it could be safely concluded that the deceased was conscious while admitted in the Hospital and the contra statement of the Village Administrative Officer that she was unconscious is not correct. 11. It is curious to note that when the occurrence took place at about 10.30 pm., on 17.9.1993, no efforts were taken either to inform the police or to take the injured to the hospital by the family members of the accused. 11. It is curious to note that when the occurrence took place at about 10.30 pm., on 17.9.1993, no efforts were taken either to inform the police or to take the injured to the hospital by the family members of the accused. P.W.4, husband of the deceased would depose that he went to bring a taxi, but he fell unconscious somewhere and when he woke up he saw that he was admitted in the Hospital. P.W.4 was admitted in the Hospital at about 5.30 a.m., But only after the Head Constable brought a taxi to the house of the deceased, the deceased was taken to the Hospital and admitted in the Hospital by 8.30 a.m., and till then the deceased should have been labouring with pains due to serious burn injuries. 12. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Since the occurrence had taken place inside the house of the accused that too at about 10.30.m., in the night, the non availability of independent witness is natural. It is also clear that the husband of the accused or the husband of the deceased or brother of the husband of the deceased living in the same house, being family members, they will not depose against the accused. Therefore, the whole case rests on the Five Dying Declarations, out of which Two are oral and Three are Written. 13. The law with regard to reliability of Dying Declaration has been well settled. The Honourable Supreme Court has given guidelines in various cases with regard to dying declarations. They are: (1) Ramilaben Hasmukhbhai Khristi Vs. State of Gujarat (2002 SCC (Crl) 1575) (2) Uka Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (2001 SCC (Crl).847) (3) Laxmi Om Prakash (2001 SCC (Crl.) 993) (4) Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of Maharashtra (2002 SCC (Crl)971) (5) Panchdeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2202 SCC (Crl) 211) (6) Mannu Raja Vs. State of M.P., (1977 MLJ (Crl. 393) (7) Shampoo Alias Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (1982 Crl.L.R. 402 and (8) Pompiah Vs. State of Mysore (1965 MLJ (Crl). 510) 14. State of Maharashtra (2002 SCC (Crl)971) (5) Panchdeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2202 SCC (Crl) 211) (6) Mannu Raja Vs. State of M.P., (1977 MLJ (Crl. 393) (7) Shampoo Alias Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (1982 Crl.L.R. 402 and (8) Pompiah Vs. State of Mysore (1965 MLJ (Crl). 510) 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the guidelines under what circumstances, the dying declaration can be acted upon:- (a) It has always to be kept in mind that though a dying declaration is entitled great weight, yet it is worthwhile to note that as the maker of the statement is not subjected to cross examination, it is essential for the court to insist that the dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. The court is obliged to rule out the possibility of the statement being the result of either tutoring, prompting or vindictive or a product of imagination. (b) The practice of the police officers recording the dying declarations except where the condition of the deceased was so precarious that no other alternative was left. Neither the number of declarations nor the length of the statement is the factor to be taken into account to rely upon them. (C) Under the law, dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction, if it is free from any kind of doubt. It may not be necessary to look for corroboration of the dying declaration. The court cannot be too technical. If it feels convinced about the trustworthiness of the Statement which may inspire confidence such a dying declaration can be acted upon without any corroboration. (d) Dying declarations shall have to be dealt with due care and upon proper circumspection. Though corroboration thereof is not essential as such, but its introduction is otherwise expedient to strength the evidential value of the declaration. Independent witnesses may not be available but there should be proper care and caution in the matter of acceptance of the dying declaration as a trustworthy piece of evidence. (e) Dying declaration itself can be treated as a substantive piece of evidence and can be the basis of an order of conviction without there being any corroboration, provided the same brings forth a sense of confidence and trustworthiness in the mind of the court. (e) Dying declaration itself can be treated as a substantive piece of evidence and can be the basis of an order of conviction without there being any corroboration, provided the same brings forth a sense of confidence and trustworthiness in the mind of the court. The issue thus becomes as to whether the dying declaration has been able to bring about a confidence thereon or not is it trustworthy or is it a mere attempt to cover up the latches of investigation: it must allure to the satisfaction of the court that reliance ought to be placed thereon rather than a distrust: the confidence of the Court is the summum bonum and in the event of there being any affirmation thereto in the judicial mind, question of any distrust would not arise. In the event of there being some infirmity, howsoever negligible it be, the court unless otherwise satisfied about the credibility thereof, ought to look for some corroboration, if however, it is otherwise, question of requirement of a corroboration would not arise. (f) As the Investigation Officers are naturally interested in the success of the investigation, the practice of the investigation officer himself recording the dying declaration during the course of the investigation should not be encouraged. (g) Where the deceased has made two dying declarations and the statement made in one dying declaration is not consistent with the statement made in the other dying declaration, the dying declaration cannot form the basis of conviction unless it finds support from other evidence on record. (h) The court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful where the court finds that the declaration is not wholly reliable, and material and integral portion of the deceased's version of the occurrence is true, the court may consider it unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of the declaration alone without further corroboration." 15. The above guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been followed by this court in Rajendran Vs. State, reported in 2003 MLJ (Crl.) 1037 and Azhagesan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, reported in 2003 MLJ (Crl) 547. 16. As far as this case is concerned, the motive is dowry harassment which is confirmed by the evidence of P.W.1, supported by documentary evidence like Ex.P.1, complaint lodged by her, and Ex.P.2, complaint lodged by the deceased on 30.4.1991. State by Inspector of Police, reported in 2003 MLJ (Crl) 547. 16. As far as this case is concerned, the motive is dowry harassment which is confirmed by the evidence of P.W.1, supported by documentary evidence like Ex.P.1, complaint lodged by her, and Ex.P.2, complaint lodged by the deceased on 30.4.1991. Though a Panchayat was held about 1 ½ months prior to the occurrence and the mother of the deceased paid Rs.8,000/= to the accused and her family, still there were frequent quarrels between the parents of the husband of the deceased and the deceased. The said fact is mentioned in Ex.P.14 statement of the deceased, based on which FIR was registered. Inspite of serious burn injuries, the members of the family of the accused have not taken any steps or an effort to take the deceased to any Hospital for treatment. On the other hand the husband of the deceased, P.W.4, has managed himself to go to Hospital at about 5.30 a.m., in the morning. The deceased was taken to the Hospital only at 8.30 a.m., after the Head Constable, P.W.15, received an anonymous phone call about the incident and went to the place of occurrence and enquired the deceased. 17. Even assuming that P.W.2 has got enmity due to a property dispute with the family of the accused, the evidence of other witness like P.W.15, Head Constable to whom the deceased told as to how she sustained injuries and the evidence of P.W.16, Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded Ex.P.14, statement of the deceased and P.W.8, Judicial Magistrate, Mayladuthurai, who recorded Ex.P.9, Dying declaration and also the evidence of P.W.6, Dr.Vasantha Leela, who admitted the deceased and recorded her statement in the Accident Register Ex.P.7, can very well be relied upon. The statement of the deceased before the Judicial Magistrate, P.W.8, recorded just few minutes prior to the death is very crucial. She has narrated the facts which led to the sustaining of burn injuries at the hands of the mother-in-law. She has also mentioned that her husband also sustained injuries. 18. The statements of the deceased before P.W.6, Doctor, P.W.15, the Head Constable, P.W.16, Sub-inspector of Police and P.W.8, Judicial Magistrate are cogent and there is no discrepancy in the said statements. Thus all the statements are dying declarations which can be relied upon and acted upon. She has also mentioned that her husband also sustained injuries. 18. The statements of the deceased before P.W.6, Doctor, P.W.15, the Head Constable, P.W.16, Sub-inspector of Police and P.W.8, Judicial Magistrate are cogent and there is no discrepancy in the said statements. Thus all the statements are dying declarations which can be relied upon and acted upon. Therefore, the case against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and conviction of the Learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. 19. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Before parting with the case, this Court records its appreciation for the services rendered by Ms.Thenkodi Nelson, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court by order dated 15.7.2004. We deem it fit to direct the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/= as fees to her.