JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J. Appellant herein stands convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Shajapur (M.P.) vide his judgment and order dated 17th December, 1996, passed in Sessions trial No. 256/1994. 2(a). Briefly stated, the prosecution's case is that deceased Shyamabai was married to Vishnu Prasad (PW 12), who resided at village Rani Barod. He occasionally visited his wife, who was serving as nurse in Civil Hospital, Awantipur Barodiya appellant/accused Nathulal came in contact with deceased Shyamabai and ultimately intimacy developed between them to such an extent that they started living together as husband and wife at Agar. 2(b). Deceased Shyamabai purchased one of her father's houses situated at village Chatukheda from her brother for Rs. 40,000/-. Rs. 30,000/- were paid and Rs. 10,000/- were to be paid by the deceased to her brother, out of the price money. Ramchandra Sondhiya, who purchased another house from her brother, also had to pay Rs. 5,000/- as remaining amount of price money. The deceased had promised his brother to bring Rs. 10,000/- due to her and Rs. 5,000/- due to Ramchandra Sondhiya. Ramchandra Sondhiya gave Rs. 5,000/- to deceased Shyamabai so that she may pass on that amount to her brother. The appellant was of the view that there was no need to pay any money to her brother and he was quarrelling with the deceased over this issue few days prior to the date of the incident. 2(c). On the date of incident the deceased was about to leave to her brother's house the appellant snatched her hand bag containing the currency notes and poured kerosene on her and set her to fire. The deceased raised cries. Brajesh Mathur (PW 8), Arun Mathur (PW 5), Jamnabai (PW 4), Raju and Sangita etc., who were residing in neighbourhood, rushed to the spot. On seeing the witnesses the appellant started making efforts to extinguish the fire and in this process he also sustained burn injuries. Deceased Shyamabai was severely burnt. The currency notes valuing Rs. 5,000/- handed over to her by Ramchandra Sondhiya were kept by her inside of her blouse and while her clothes caught fire these currency notes also got damaged by the fire and fell down on the earth during the incident. 2(d). PW 8 Brajesh Mathur took the deceased in autoriksha to the hospital, from where the police was informed about the incident. 2(d). PW 8 Brajesh Mathur took the deceased in autoriksha to the hospital, from where the police was informed about the incident. Head Constable Tarachand (PW 9) reached the hospital. He recorded statements of injured Shyamabai. Her dying declaration (Ex. P/4) was also got recorded by the Executive Magistrate/Naib-tehsildar Madan Rao (PW 10). An offence was duly registered at police station Agar. Later on Shyamabai succumbed to her burn injuries, Dr. R.S. Dangarh (PW 15) performed autopsy on the dead body and prepared post-mortem report (Ex. P/28). 2(e). Appellant while pretending to extinguish the fire sustained burn injuries, therefore, he was also got examined. After conducting due investigation, charge sheet was put up against the accused/appellant. 2(f). The trial Court framed charge against the accused u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, who abjured the guilt and pleaded not guilty. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of the same to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. Hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Undisputedly, the deceased Shyamabai sustained severe burn injuries. Dr. R.S. Dangarh (PW-15), who performed autopsy on the dead body, has opined that the cause of death of the deceased Shyamabai was shock caused due to extensive burn. It is nobodies case that Shyamabai committed suicide. Hence, the possibility of her death being suicidal is totally ruled out at the outset. Her death was homicidal or suicidal will depend on the fact - Whether she was set to fire by the appellant? Or, Whether she caught fire accidentally? So without expressing any opinion, at this juncture regarding the nature of the death of the deceased Shyamabai, we straightway switch on to consider the question whether appellant caused her the burn injuries by setting her to fire? Or, whether she caught the fire accidentally? No direct evidence is available regarding the complicity of the appellant as so called eye witness has turned hostile. The evidence of dying declaration made by the deceased is available against the accused appellant. Learned counsel for appellant has vehemently contended that the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on dying declaration alone. His submission is that the evidence of dying declaration is a weak type of evidence and the conviction cannot be based on the sole evidence of dying declaration. Learned counsel for appellant has vehemently contended that the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on dying declaration alone. His submission is that the evidence of dying declaration is a weak type of evidence and the conviction cannot be based on the sole evidence of dying declaration. Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on the case of State of Assam vs. Mafizuddin Ahmed reported in AIR 1983 SC 274 . In the aforesaid case, the incident took place on 10th of April, 1973 and the deceased was admitted in hospital on the same day. On 18th April, 1973 brother of uncle of deceased met her at the hospital who happened to be there in connection with his own illness. When he met the deceased and asked as to what happened to her then she told him about the incident. She for the first time told him that her husband had set her to fire. Thereafter, the report was lodged and police arranged for recording of her dying declaration, which was recorded on that day and she succumbed to her injuries on that very day. Prior to 18th April, 1973, she did not disclose to any one she met in the hospital that her husband sprinkled kerosene oil and set on her to fire. In the facts and circumstances of the case (supra), truthfulness of dying declaration made by the deceased was found to be doubtful. The facts of the present case are different. Therefore, appellant cannot get any benefit from the case of Mafizuddin Ahmed (supra). Even in the case of Mafizuddin Ahmed (supra) it has been observed that there is no absolute rule of law, or even the rule of prudence which has ripened into a rule of law, that a dying declaration unless corroborated by other independent evidence, is not fit to be acted upon, and made the basis of a conviction. The law is now well settled that conviction can be based on the basis of the dying declaration. It is not at all necessary to have a corroboration if the dying declaration is truthful dying declaration and not vitiated in any other manner. Learned counsel for appellant has criticized the statements of deceased recorded by Head Constable Tarachand (PW-9) and Mahendra Singh Saktawat (PW-14) from being treated as dying declaration. It is not at all necessary to have a corroboration if the dying declaration is truthful dying declaration and not vitiated in any other manner. Learned counsel for appellant has criticized the statements of deceased recorded by Head Constable Tarachand (PW-9) and Mahendra Singh Saktawat (PW-14) from being treated as dying declaration. Without entering into the controversy even after ignoring the evidence of the statement made by the deceased before the police officers the dying declaration recorded by Madanrao (PW-10), who was an executive magistrate i.e. Naib Tehsildar at the relevant point of time, is available on record. This statement made by the deceased and recorded by the aforesaid witness has been exhibited as Ex. P/4. There is nothing to doubt the genuineness or the truthfulness of Ex. P/4. Learned counsel for the appellant has attacked on the reliability of this dying declaration on the basis that attending doctor has not certified about the mental condition of the deponent Shyamabai. The submission of the learned counsel is that medical certificate appended to Ex. P/4 only states to her physical condition to make a statement. It does not refer to the mental condition, therefore, appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Uka Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, . In Uka Ram's case, deceased wife was mental patient, in the case in hand, no such circumstance is present and there is evidence to the effect that while deceased Shyamabai was rushed to hospital, she was conscious and talking in natural manner [please see the statement of Arun Mathur (PW-5), who is an advocate and who has been declared hostile by the prosecution]. Thus, the appellant does not get any benefit from the case cited by his learned counsel. The dying declaration Ex. P/4 is truthful and reliable and learned trial Court has not erred in basing conviction on it. Learned trial Court after duly appreciating the evidence on record, has drawn an inference than it was the appellant who set deceased on fire and thus, caused her burn injuries, which ultimately resulted in her death. Thus, death of deceased Shyamabai was homicidal one and was caused by the appellant. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that appellant himself sustained burn injuries in extinguishing the fire, which goes to prove that appellant did not commit the offence. This contention cannot be accepted. Thus, death of deceased Shyamabai was homicidal one and was caused by the appellant. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that appellant himself sustained burn injuries in extinguishing the fire, which goes to prove that appellant did not commit the offence. This contention cannot be accepted. Sustaining of burn injuries does not by itself prove that appellant did not set fire to the deceased or that he was only trying to save her. According to appellant deceased caught fire accidentally while she was lighting stove. The explanation putforth by appellant does not appear probable, natural or believable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Had the deceased caught fire accidentally why she would falsely implicate appellant? She had been living with the appellant as his wife. Neither deceased nor someone else has been shown to possess any axe to grind against appellant, it does not appear probable in the facts and circumstances of the case that deceased caught the fire accidentally. Learned trial Court, after considering and properly appreciating the evidence on record, has drawn inference regarding the guilt of appellant. We are in total agreement with the reasoning and inferences of the learned trial Court. Conviction of appellant is legal and he has been rightly held guilty for the commission of murder of deceased Shyamabai and he has been rightly and properly sentenced. Consequently, this appeal is rejected as devoid of any substance. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are hereby maintained. Final Result : Dismissed