JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant through jail against the judgment dated 10-1-1997 rendered by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Sessions Trial No. 211/96, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in short are that on 12-12-1995, in the evening at 6.00 PM, deceased Kodarsingh was returning to his village from the market. At the outskirt of the village appellant had his illicit countrymade liquor BHATTI, where witnesses Ramsingh and Bhangda were sitting. When the deceased reached near ALI-NALA, he was called by appellant Idla. The appellant-Idla made a complaint about two days' back quarrel by the deceased with the son of appellant named Jabaria on account of a dispute over partition of agricultural land. Thereafter, the appellant shot two arrows, the first one hit at the left side of the chest on upper ribs and the another shot pierced to the lower abdomen. The deceased took out the first arrow pierced inside the ribs, but the next one remained embaded inside the body. He was seriously wounded and fell on the ground. The deceased was taken in a bullock-cart to the Police Station by his relatives where the deceased lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P/10) on 13-12-1995 at 3.30 AM, which was recorded by the Station House Officer PW-7 J.P. Saket. Thereafter, J.P. Saket also recorded the statement u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Ex. P/11 of Kodarsingh. The offence was registered u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was referred for medical treatment and he was immediately attended by PW-1 Dr Ramchandra Panika. His M.L.C. Report is Ex. P/2. Dr Panika also recorded the Dying Declaration made by the deceased vide Ex. P/4. Thereafter, the deceased was referred to the District Hospital, Alirajpur. At Alirajpur hospital, the deceased died on 13-12-1995 at 8.30 PM. Ex. P/15 information to this effect was sent by the hospital to the police. Thereafter, the police converted the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet against the appellant was filed. The appellant abjured his guilt before the trial Court. At Alirajpur hospital, the deceased died on 13-12-1995 at 8.30 PM. Ex. P/15 information to this effect was sent by the hospital to the police. Thereafter, the police converted the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet against the appellant was filed. The appellant abjured his guilt before the trial Court. According to him, he was falsely implicated on account of a dispute over the agricultural land. He did not examine any witness in his defence. He was charged u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was put to trial. The learned trial Court, after examining the prosecution witnesses and hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. We have heard Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Girish Desai, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the State and perused the entire record carefully. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial Court should have not relied upon the First Information Report (Ex. P/10) lodged by the deceased as well as the case-diary-statement Ex. P/11, especially when the learned trial Court has disbelieved the Dying-Declaration (Ex. P/4) recorded by Dr. Ramchandra Panika (PW-1). Her contention is that there is no material available on record to establish that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of lodging of the First Information Report and giving his statement before the Police (Ex. P/11). Learned counsel has supported the findings recorded by the learned trial Court not relying upon the Dying Declaration (Ex. P/4) recorded by PW-1 Dr. Panika as discussed in paras 16 and 21 of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Karan Vs. State of (N.C.T. Delhi), . On the other hand, learned Dy. Advocate General Shri Desai has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly discarded the Dying-Declaration (Ex. P/4) recorded by PW-1 Dr. Panika and for this no cogent, reliable and valid reasons have been assigned by the trial Court. State of (N.C.T. Delhi), . On the other hand, learned Dy. Advocate General Shri Desai has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly discarded the Dying-Declaration (Ex. P/4) recorded by PW-1 Dr. Panika and for this no cogent, reliable and valid reasons have been assigned by the trial Court. The Dying-Declaration has been disbelieved by the trial Court mainly on the ground that it was not recorded in question and answer form as well as the doctor has not given the certificate of mental fitness of the deceased before commencement of recording of Dying-Declaration and after its completion. He has also not obtained the signature of any of the witnesses. The learned trial Court has wrongly held that the Dying-Declaration was recorded in an irresponsible and negligent manner. It is also submitted that for relying the First Information Report (Ex. P/10) and the statement (Ex. P/11) as Dying Declaration, the learned Judge at the same time, placed reliance on the statement of Dr. PW-1 Ramchandra Panika, who has stated that the deceased was conscious at the time of recording Dying-Declaration. To strengthen his submission, he cited the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra, . In this cited case, three Judges' Bench referred two earlier three Judges' Bench decisions contradictory on the point of appreciation and placing reliance on un-corroborated Dying-Declaration. This judgment has been rendered by the Constitutional Bench of six Judges. The second judgment is passed in the case of Rambai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court about appreciation of Dying-Declaration, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the Dying-Declaration (Ex. P/4) recorded by Dr. Ramchandra Panika (PW-1). In the judgment of Laxman (supra), the Constitutional Bench has held that : "mere absence of doctor's certification as to the fitness of the declarant's state of mind would not ipso facto render the dying-declaration unacceptable." The evidentiary value of such a declaration would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Ramchandra Panika (PW-1). In the judgment of Laxman (supra), the Constitutional Bench has held that : "mere absence of doctor's certification as to the fitness of the declarant's state of mind would not ipso facto render the dying-declaration unacceptable." The evidentiary value of such a declaration would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The Apex Court has also held that "There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made to a Magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a Magistrate there is no specified statutory form for such recording. Consequently, what evidential value or weight has to be attached to such statement necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case." In the judgment of Rambai (supra), again the Supreme Court has reiterated the law that "Absence of doctor's certificate about mental fitness of deceased to make the statement - Dying Declaration cannot be rejected solely on that ground if the person recording the statement is satisfied that declarant was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration the same can be relied upon." In the case in hand, the learned trial Court has not relied upon the Dying-Declaration (Ex. P/4) recorded by the doctor who was on duty and examined the deceased first in point of time, also prepared his M.L.C. Report (Ex. P/2) and this doctor in the Court, has specifically stated that the deceased was conscious. In the statement of this doctor, we find nothing to come to the conclusion that while recording the Dying-Declaration of the deceased, the deceased was in a fit state of mind or not and he was not satisfied with his mental condition and consciousness. Even then he was recording the dying-declaration. This dying-declaration also cannot be thrown over the board on the ground that it was not recorded in question and answer form. In the end of dying-declaration, the doctor has taken the thumb-impression of the deceased and also proved the same in the Court. The doctor is an independent person. He has no grudge or axe to grind against the accused to implicate him falsely. Therefore, invoking the power of this Court as enshrined u/s 386, sub-section (b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellate Court has power to alter the finding maintaining the sentence. The doctor is an independent person. He has no grudge or axe to grind against the accused to implicate him falsely. Therefore, invoking the power of this Court as enshrined u/s 386, sub-section (b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellate Court has power to alter the finding maintaining the sentence. We accordingly alter the finding of discarding the dying-declaration (Ex. P/4) by the trial Court and hold that since it is recorded by the doctor and in this dying-declaration, the name of the appellant is mentioned as author of the death of the deceased. This statement is recorded in detail and is in conformity with the First Information lodged by the deceased which has been rightly treated as Dying-Declaration by the trial Court as well as the statement of the deceased (Ex. P/11). In both these documents, the deceased has mentioned in detail about the incident, reasons for the incident, previous enmity, weapon used by the appellant and the name of the appellant. The time of incident was 6.00 P.M. and the deceased and appellant were known to each other. They were residing in the same village having land-dispute. The judgment rendered in Jai Karan's case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, is not helpful to her. In this judgment also, the Supreme Court has held that the dying-declaration can be relied upon independently without corroboration, if it is found to be otherwise true and reliable. The law in this regard is well settled right from the leading judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Khushal Rao reported in Khushal Rao Vs. The State of Bombay, . In the judgment of Jai Koran's case, the Supreme Court has discarded the Dying-Declaration because the signature or the thumb-impression of the deceased was not taken on the Dying Declaration and the statement was also not attested by any other person. Apart from this, positive evidence was also available on record that according to the medical incharge of the Ward of the deceased, the deceased was not in a fit condition of making statement. In such situation, the Supreme Court has held that only on the sole basis of Dying-Declaration, the appellant could have not been convicted. Such is not a situation available here in the present case. In view of the consistency in the First Information Report (Ex. In such situation, the Supreme Court has held that only on the sole basis of Dying-Declaration, the appellant could have not been convicted. Such is not a situation available here in the present case. In view of the consistency in the First Information Report (Ex. P/10) lodged by the deceased, which is admissible u/s 32 of the Evidence Act as Dying-Declaration, his statement Ex. P/11 as well as the Dying-Declaration Ex. P/4, recorded by PW-1 Dr. Ramchandra Panika, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no scope for interference in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court are affirmed. Record of the trial Court be remitted immediately. Final Result : Dismissed